IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CR-7286-2019 Date of decision :26.08.2026 TARSEM KUMAR ... PETITIONER VERSUS PARSHOTAM LAL AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents. **** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner- plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 04.09.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which application preferred by petitioner- plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking to lead additional evidence, was dismissed. 2. The suit for specific performance was instituted by the petitioner- plaintiff on 13.09.2013, whereupon notices were issued. The written statement was filed and, thereafter, issues were framed. After framing of the issues, at the stage of leading evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff chose not to appear as his own witness and instead, examined his power of attorney, namely, Raghu Raja Sharma (PW-1) in support of his case. Thereafter, the petitioner-plaintiff’s MANOJ KUMAR 2026.08.27 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7286-2019 -2- evidence was closed after affording due opportunity. The respondents- defendants were subsequently examined and even the respondent’s-defendant’s evidence was closed on 21.12.2017. 3. Thereafter, at the stage of rebuttal evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff moved an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence, whereby he sought permission to appear himself as a witness in support of his case. It was pleaded that he could not appear earlier as he was confined in jail. 4. However, the learned Court below, after considering the respective contentions of the parties, concluded that petitioner-plaintiff had intentionally concealed the period during which, and the circumstances in which, he remained confined in the Central Jail. It was further observed that the petitioner-plaintiff was attempting to fill up the lacunae in his case after the conclusion of the respondents-defendants’ evidence, despite having himself chosen not to appear as a witness earlier and having examined his power of attorney in his place. 5. On consideration, I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.09.2019. Learned counsel for the defendant has duly pointed out that the petitioner-plaintiff remained in custody from 21.09.2018 to 26.02.2019, i.e. much after the closure of the respondents-defendants’ evidence on 21.12.2017. The period of confinement so noted above could not be shown to be wrong. It has further been pointed out that, on 17.04.2014, the challan was presented before the Court (in the matter referred to by the petitioner-plaintiff in his application), arising out of FIR No. 59/2013 under Sections 306/34 IPC at police Station Sadar, wherein the petitioner-plaintiff was declared innocent and it was found that no case for proceeding against him was made out. 6. Thus, after being declared innocent on 17.04.2014, the petitioner- MANOJ KUMAR 2026.08.27 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7286-2019 -3- plaintiff examined his power of attorney on 18.09.2014. He could very well have appeared himself as a witness, but it is clearly borne out from the record that he consciously chose to represent himself through his power of attorney. Having taken such a conscious decision and allowing his own evidence to be closed, he cannot now, after the conclusion of the defendant’s evidence, be permitted to fill up the lacunae in his case by seeking to appear as an additional witness. Such an exercise cannot be permitted at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the present revision petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Since the matter has been pending since 2013, the learned Trial Court is directed to decide the suit within a period of three months from today, as the evidence of both the parties already stands concluded. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly. 26.08.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.08.27 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document