IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-5464-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 18.08.2025 Karan Sidhu ....Petitioner VERSUS Mohinder Singh and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was closed by order of the Court.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to briefly notice the sequence of proceedings before the learned trial Court. From the photostat copies of the zimni orders placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner, it emerges that after framing of issues, the petitioner/plaintiff was granted several opportunities to lead his evidence. The effective dates when the matter was taken up for the plaintiff’s evidence are as under:

16.03.2023 – Case fixed for plaintiff’s evidence. 18.08.2023 – Plaintiff again availed opportunity.

26.09.2023 – Case adjourned for evidence.

03.11.2023 – PW-1 was present; however, her cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for defendant.

15.12.2023 – No PF and no witness present.

06.02.2024 – Same position continued.

08.05.2024 – Again, no effective evidence recorded.

16.07.2024 – Case adjourned for evidence.

29.08.2024 – No progress in evidence.

11.10.2024 – Matter fixed for PE but not concluded.

3. The record thus demonstrates that the plaintiff availed as many as nine effective opportunities to complete his evidence. However, in the impugned order, the learned trial Court observed that nearly fifteen opportunities had been availed, and finding no justification to adjourn the matter further, proceeded to close the evidence of the plaintiff by order of the Court.

4. It is true that the exact number of opportunities as reflected from the record may not tally with the observation made by the trial Court, yet even taking the petitioner’s stand that nine effective opportunities had been availed, the fact remains that the plaintiff has been negligent in diligently pursuing the evidence. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contemplate only a limited number of opportunities for leading evidence, and the plaintiff has evidently travelled beyond that limit.

5. At the same time, it is a settled principle that no party should be condemned unheard, and the lis between the parties should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than by default, provided that the indulgence of the Court is not misused. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has given a categorical undertaking that if one final effective opportunity is granted, the plaintiff shall conclude the entire evidence without seeking any further adjournment, and is ready to pay costs to compensate the other side for the delay caused.

6. Considering the undertaking given, and in the larger interest of justice, I am of the view that one last opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to lead and conclude his entire evidence.

7. The present revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 07.04.2025 is hereby set aside. The petitioner/plaintiff shall be afforded one effective opportunity to conclude his entire evidence before the trial Court, subject to payment of costs of ₹10,000/- to the respondent, which shall be paid on the next date before the trial Court as a condition precedent.

8. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner/plaintiff on any ground whatsoever, and in the event of default, the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.

9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

August 18, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU)

tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No