IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4176-2026 Date of decision: 18.05.2026 Vikram Singh Sodhi ...Petitioner Versus Rupinder Singh Sodhi .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Ms. Dilmrig Nayani, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur Sahib, in CM-38-2022 titled “Rupinder Singh Sodhi vs. Vikram Singh Sodhi”, whereby the learned trial Court closed the defence evidence of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Rupinder Singh Sodhi had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC before Notice of the said application was issued to the present petitioner, who contested the same by filing a written statement. Thereafter, issues were framed and the respondent led his evidence, whereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the present petitioner/defendant. Further, vide impugned order dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur Sahib, observed that no RW was present despite the grant of last opportunity. It was further observed that the petitioner had already availed sufficient opportunities to conclude his entire evidence but had failed to do so. Consequently, the defence evidence of the petitioner/defendant was closed by Court order and the case was fixed for arguments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in the adjudication of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the petitioner may be granted one effective opportunity to conclude his entire evidence.

4. Considering the limited nature of relief sought, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as the same would only result in further delay in the proceedings.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper book with his able assistance.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the case, and considering the fact that valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in the matter, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Sahib, is directed to give one effective opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to conclude his entire evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the concerned District Legal Services Authority.

7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

May 18, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

anil JUDGE