IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.05.2026 Gurmail Singh …Petitioner V/s Mamta Joshi and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Phillaur, vide which the application for additional evidence moved by the respondents-plaintiffs was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit (Annexure P-1) for possession was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs as regards property (fully described in the plaint), measuring 10 marlas, situated in Village Kotli, Khakhian, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”). The suit was opposed by way of a written statement Annexure P-2.

4. During the course of the trial, an application (Annexure P-3) was moved by the respondents-plaintiffs for appointment of a revenue official as a local commissioner for demarcation of Khasra No.423. The said application was opposed by way of a response Annexure P-3/A. Vide order dated

10.09.2024, the said application was dismissed.

5. Against the said order, C.R.6053 of 2024 was instituted, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-4).

6. Thereafter, an application (Annexure P-6) was moved by the respondents-plaintiffs to produce and prove on record a certified copy of the application for demarcation dated 21.01.2026, the presence sheet and the report of the Halq Kanungo dated 06.02.2026 by way of additional evidence. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-7). By way of the impugned order dated 21.04.2026, the said application was allowed, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable. Learned counsel submits that the entire evidence of both sides had been concluded and evidence of the plaintiff had been closed by order of the Court after five years and after the respondents-plaintiffs having availed 51 opportunities. It has been submitted that under the circumstances, there was no occasion for the trial Court to have allowed the application for additional evidence.

9. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order amounts to a review of the previous order, vide which the application for the appointment of a local commissioner had been dismissed. It has been submitted that the said order had attained finality as revision petition against the said order had been dismissed. Learned counsel submits that under the circumstances, the application for additional evidence could not have been allowed. Learned counsel has also submitted that after the application has been allowed, the plaintiffs are again delaying the matter and are not producing the additional evidence. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgments in the case of Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) Thr Lrs. & Ors., (2016) 11 SCC 296, K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 3 SCC (Civil) 665 and Amarjit Singh v. Rachhpal Singh & Anr. (CR-4671-2013, decided on 12.01.2017).

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. No doubt, earlier an application for appointment of a local commissioner was moved by the respondents-plaintiffs which was dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2024 and against the said order, C.R.6053 of 2024 had been instituted, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2025. However, the application for appointment of a local commissioner and the civil revision were primarily dismissed on the ground that the Court cannot collect evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and it is for the plaintiffs to prove their own case.

12. It is also not in disput