CR-7241-2018 (O&M) and another connected matter -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 (2 cases) Date of decision :- 06.07.2026 (1) CR-7241-2018 (O&M) SUSHIL KUMAR .... Petitioner Versus BRIJPAL & ORS .... Respondents (2) CR-1694-2020 (O&M) RADHESHYAM …. Petitioner Versus BRIJPAL & ORS …. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CR-7241-2018. Mr. Bikram Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner in CR-1694-2020. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1 in both cases. **** AMARJOT BHATTI J. CM-10222-CII-2026 This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for placing on record medical file of respondent No. 1 of the year 2018 March-April as Annexure R-1/1. For the reasons enumerated in application, same is allowed. Accompanying document Annexure R-1/1 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.09 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7241-2018 (O&M) and another connected matter -2- Main case 1. Both civil revisions as referred above arising out of common orders dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P/12) and 07.09.2018 (Annexure P/6) are taken up together for disposal. 2. Petitioner Sushil Kumar (defendant No. 3 in main case) and petitioner Radheshyam (defendant No. 8 in main case, impleaded subsequently vide order dated 18.10.2018, Annexure P-13 in CR-1694-2020) filed separate civil revisions against impugned order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P/12 in both cases) and order dated 07.09.2018 (Annexure P/6 in both cases), both passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samalkha, vide which application filed by plaintiff (respondent No.1 in this case) under Section 151 CPC was allowed, subject to cost of Rs. 3,000/- vide which contesting defendants were directed to cross-examine the plaintiff on the next date of hearing and to conclude remaining evidence on the next date of hearing as detailed therein. 3. Learned counsel representing petitioners/defendants No. 3 and 8 pointed out that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Brijpal filed suit for possession by way of declaration regarding owner in possession of 155/160th share in equal share with his brother Vikram – respondent No. 6 in this case, out of 24 Kanal- 15 Marla of land situated in village Patti Kaliyana, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat (Annexure P/1). Suit was contested by defendants. Written statement filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 is Annexure P/2 in both cases and written statement filed by defendants No. 3 and 4 is Annexure P/3 in both cases. During the proceedings of trial, respondent No. 1/plaintiff examined witnesses. Finally on account of non-appearance of plaintiff as well as his LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.09 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7241-2018 (O&M) and another connected matter -3- counsel, evidence of plaintiff was closed by order vide order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure P/7 in both cases). However, respondent No. 1/plaintiff was given an opportunity to appear on the next date of hearing, failing which suit shall be dismissed in default. As per order dated 24.04.2018 (Annexure P/8 in both cases), respondent No. 1/plaintiff along with counsel appeared and case was adjourned for 22.05.2018 for defendant evidence. On the next date of hearing, respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed application (Annexure P/10 in both cases) under Section 151 CPC for setting aside order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure P/7), with further permission to lead evidence. Application was contested by filing reply (Annexure P/11 in both cases). After hearing arguments, application under Section 151 CPC was allowed by passing impugned order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P/12 in both cases). Feeling aggrieved, petitioners/defendants No. 3 and 8 filed present civil revisions. Learned counsel representing petitioners/defendants No. 3 and 8 argued that application filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff under Section 151 CPC was not maintainable. Evidence of respondent No. 1/plaintiff was already closed by the trial Court vide order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samalkha was not justified to review his own order and wrongly permitted respondent No. 1/plaintiff to lead evidence by passing impugned order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P/12). In case, respondent No. 1/plaintiff was aggrieved of the order regarding closing his evidence by order, he could have challenged the said order before the competent authority by filing revision. There was no sufficient reason for learned trial Court to exercise the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC. Therefore, impugned order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P/12) and subsequent LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.09 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7241-2018 (O&M) and another connected matter -4- order dated 07.09.2018 (Annexure P/6) are liable to be set aside by accepting present civil revisions. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.1/plaintiff argued that plaintiff could not appear on the date fixed i.e. 10.04.2018 on account of his illness. His counsel could not appear before the trial Court as he was busy in other case before another Court. Under these circumstances, evidence of respondent No. 1/plaintiff was closed by order. There was no intentional absence on the part of respondent No. 1/plaintiff. This fact was duly considered by learned trial Court while disposing of the application under Section 151 CPC, as a result his application was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- to contesting defendants. Medical record relied upon before trial Court is Annexure R-1/1. Order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samalkha dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P/12) and order dated 07.09.2018 (Annexure P/6) are fully justified and same do not require any interference. 5. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. As referred above, on 10.04.2018, case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence. However, on account of non-appearance of plaintiff as well as his counsel, evidence was closed by order vide order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure P/7). The case was not dismissed in default, however, one opportunity was granted to respondent No. 1/plaintiff to appear. It was further observed that in case plaintiff or his counsel failed to appear, suit shall be dismissed in default. On the next date of hearing i.e. 24.04.2018 (Annexure P/8), respondent No. 1/plaintiff appeared along with his counsel Sh. Dayanand Panwar, Advocate and case was adjourned for defendant evidence. On the next LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.09 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7241-2018 (O&M) and another connected matter -5- date of hearing i.e. 22.05.2018, respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed application under Section 151 CPC (Annexure P/10) for setting aside order dated 10.04.2018 and seeking permission to conclude his evidence. Application filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff under Section 151 CPC was allowed vide order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P/12), which is challenged by petitioners/defendants No. 3 and 8. In pursuance of this order (Annexure P/6), two witnesses were examined and plaintiff was cross-examined. The documents were exhibited and evidence of plaintiff was closed on the same day and it was adjourned for evidence of defendants. Learned trial Court while allowing application under Section 151 CPC laid emphasis on medical file of respondent No. 1/plaintiff (Annexure R- 1/1). Learned trial Court considering the medical record of March-April, 2018 deemed it proper to give one more opportunity to plaintiff to conclude evidence, subject to payment of cost. There was justifiable reason for not appearing in Court on date fixed when the evidence was closed by order. For final adjudication of case, evidence is required to be recorded of both the sides and thereafter, case is to be decided on merits. On hyper technical reasons, stand taken by respondent No. 1/plaintiff could not be rejected. The evidence to be led by him was crucial. Even otherwise, petitioners/defendants No. 3 and 8 did not suffer any prejudice as they got full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by respondent No. 1/plaintiff. Thereafter, case was again adjourned for defendants’ evidence as per order dated 07.09.2018 (Annexure P/6). 6. Therefore, considering the aforesaid factual position, I do not find any reason to interfere in impugned order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure P/12 in LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.09 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7241-2018 (O&M) and another connected matter -6- both cases) and subsequent order dated 07.09.2018 (Annexure P/6 in both cases) and same are, accordingly upheld. Resultantly, finding no merits in present civil revisions i.e. CR-7241-2018 and CR-1694-2020 preferred by petitioners/defendants No. 3 and 8, namely, Sushil Kumar and Radheshyam, same are accordingly dismissed. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in both cases shall stand disposed of accordingly. 8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case mentioned above. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 06.07.2026 lalit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.09 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document