IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :19.05.2026 HARSHIT SONI ... PETITIONER VERSUS SUCHITA VERMA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure P-8), whereby the evidence of the defendants was closed by the learned Court of first instance, as well as order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-9), whereby the application for furnishing list of witnesses was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

2. In the present case, the facts are not much in dispute. The respondents-plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession along with consequential relief of permanent injunction on 07.10.2020 before the learned Civil Judge, Gurugram. Thereafter, petitioner-defendants duly appeared and filed written statement. Issues were framed, and the plaintiff’s evidence was thereafter concluded.

3. Subsequently, the case was fixed for defendants’ evidence on 16.11.2023. During the pendency of the defendants’ evidence, the defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint; however, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2024. 4. It is also not in dispute that from 16.11.2023 till passing of the order dated 23.03.2026, the defendants had duly availed as many as 11 opportunities to conclude their evidence. However, till 23.03.2026, only one witness, namely DW-1, had been examined by the defendants. It is further not in dispute that till 23.03.2026, no list of witnesses had been filed by the defendants. The learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2026, duly noticed that on the previous date of hearing i.e. on 08.12.2025, last opportunity to conclude the defendants’ evidence was granted, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited in DLSA by the defendants. It is also pertinent to notice that the ad valorem Court fee, which had been ordered to be filed vide order dated 07.08.2024, was filed by the plaintiff on the said date i.e. 08.12.2025. 5. From the above-noted facts, it is clearly made out that the defendants were fully aware that they have already availed numerous opportunities and had been specifically put to notice to conclude their evidence on the date fixed i.e. 23.03.2026, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-. However, on 23.03.2026, the learned trial Court noticed that till 3:30 p.m., no evidence was produced by the defendants and when learned counsel for the defendants was asked to lead defence evidence, at that stage, prayer for adjournment was made, which was strongly opposed on behalf of plaintiff.

6. The learned trial Court, after noticing the conduct of the defendants in availing as many as 11 opportunities, filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at a belated stage i.e. during the stage of defendants’ evidence, and repeatedly changing and engaging different counsel during the course of trial, came to the conclusion that grant of any further opportunity was not justified. Accordingly, the evidence on behalf of the defendants was closed at about 3:30 p.m., as recorded in the order dated 23.03.2026. Subsequently, at about 4:00 p.m., the learned counsel for the defendants appeared and moved an application on behalf of defendant No.2 for summoning of witnesses. This was done despite the fact that the Reader as well as the learned Presiding Officer had already conveyed that the defendants’ evidence stood closed by Court order after grant of sufficient opportunities.

7. The learned trial Court had further noticed in its order dated 23.03.2026 that, upon this, the learned counsel for the defendants started blaming the Court by asserting that injustice was being done to the defendants. He further claimed that he had a right to see