(118) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.05.2026 M/S D.K. JEWELLERS AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Vs.

RENU BALA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Faridabad, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recall of the unauthorized “No Objection” purportedly given by their erstwhile counsel, as well as for setting aside the permission granted to the plaintiff to withdraw her earlier affidavit and to tender a fresh affidavit along with additional documents exhibited as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-22, has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery on the basis of cheque dated 02.12.2018. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants in accordance with law. During the course of trial, the respondent/plaintiff tendered her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit dated 08.08.2023 along with documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-8. At a subsequent stage on 22.09.2023, the respondent/plaintiff moved an application seeking permission to withdraw the said affidavit dated 08.08.2023 and to place on record a fresh affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. On the same date, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners allegedly made a statement before the Trial Court expressing “no objection” to the aforesaid request of the respondent/plaintiff. Acting upon the said statement, the learned Trial Court permitted withdrawal of the earlier affidavit and allowed filing of a fresh affidavit along with additional documents. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they were neither informed nor consulted by their then counsel regarding the said concession and came to know about the same only on 07.02.2024, at the stage of inspection of record during execution proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the unauthorized concession allegedly given by their former counsel and for consequential relief. The said application, after contest, was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 13.01.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition assailing the legality and validity of the said order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that any statement made by a counsel without proper authority or instructions from the party is not binding upon the litigant and can be recalled or corrected in appropriate proceedings by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has erred in law in not exercising its inherent jurisdiction to recall the unauthorized concession, despite the fact that the same has caused serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioners. According to learned counsel, there is no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure which permits withdrawal of a duly tendered examination-in-chief in the manner allowed by the Trial Court. By permitting such withdrawal and allowing the respondent/plaintiff to substitute her earlier affidavit with a fresh one along with additional documents, the learned Trial Court has, in effect, enabled the plaintiff to fill up the lacunae in her case and to improve upon the evidence already brought on record, which is impermissible in law. It is thus submitted that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its revisional