CR No.326 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 135 AKSHEY KUMAR AKSHEY KUMAR AKSHEY KUMAR AKSHEY KUMAR Vs Vs Vs Vs RANJIT SINGH GILL AND ORS RANJIT SINGH GILL AND ORS RANJIT SINGH GILL AND ORS RANJIT SINGH GILL AND ORS CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) [1]. By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to passed by the evidence of the petitioner opportunity to cross [2]. Briefly stating, a suit for recovery of Rs. at the instance of respondent No.1/plaintiff petitioner/defendant notice, separate written statements were filed by petitioner/defendant No other defendants and thereafter 07.12.2018. Respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CR No.326 of 2020 (O&M) CR No.326 of 2020 (O&M) CR No.326 of 2020 (O&M) CR No.326 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: AKSHEY KUMAR AKSHEY KUMAR AKSHEY KUMAR AKSHEY KUMAR RANJIT SINGH GILL AND ORS RANJIT SINGH GILL AND ORS RANJIT SINGH GILL AND ORS RANJIT SINGH GILL AND ORS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenge has been laid to the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division evidence of the petitioner-defendant No.1 was closed by Court order opportunity to cross-examine PW-5 and PW-6 was recorded as not availed Briefly stating, a suit for recovery of Rs. at the instance of respondent No.1/plaintiff petitioner/defendant No.1 based on sale deed executed between the parties. notice, separate written statements were filed by petitioner/defendant No other defendants and thereafter the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence espondent No.1/plaintiff concluded IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CR No.326 of 2020 (O&M) CR No.326 of 2020 (O&M) CR No.326 of 2020 (O&M) CR No.326 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 27.08.2025 27.08.2025 27.08.2025 27.08.2025 ...... ...... ...... ......Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner(s) (s) (s) (s) ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent((((ssss)))) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution s dated 10.01.2020 and 14.11.2019 Division) Pathankot, whereby the was closed by Court order and 6 was recorded as not availed. Briefly stating, a suit for recovery of Rs.28,20,000/- came to be filed at the instance of respondent No.1/plaintiff on 30.05.2017 against executed between the parties. Upon notice, separate written statements were filed by petitioner/defendant No.1 and the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence concluded his evidence on 04.12.2019 1 By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution 14.11.2019 whereby the and came to be filed against Upon and the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence on 04.12.2019. MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.01 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.326 of 2020 Thereafter, petitioner/defendant conclude his evidence Prior thereto, vide order opportunity to cross treated as given but [3]. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendan substantial rights of the parties and in case the petitioner is not afforded an opportunity to substantiate his defence would suffer an the petitioner/defendant No.1 before the Trial Court on 14.11.2019 for cross examination of PW [3.1]. Learned counsel afforded five effective opportunities for concluding his evidence, however, the same were all within a almost a year to conclude his evidence, thus no sufficient time was given to petitioner/defendant No.1 to conclude his evidence. counsel prays for setting aside of the impugned orders. [4]. I have heard learned counsel for the paper book. [5]. Apparently there the discretion exercised by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order however, purely in the interest of justice, recovery suit has been filed Thereafter, petitioner/defendant No.1 having availed five opportunities could not conclude his evidence and the same was closed by Court order on ide order dated 14.11.2019, it was recorded by the Trial Court that opportunity to cross-examine PW-5 and PW-6 treated as given but not availed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that the determination of suit involves substantial rights of the parties and in case the petitioner is not afforded an opportunity to substantiate his defence and to cross an irreparable loss and injury. He also the petitioner/defendant No.1 before the Trial Court on 14.11.2019 for cross examination of PW-5 and PW-6 was for bona fide Learned counsel again points out that though the petitioner was effective opportunities for concluding his evidence, however, the same were all within a span of 28 days whereas respondent a year to conclude his evidence, thus no sufficient time was given to petitioner/defendant No.1 to conclude his evidence. counsel prays for setting aside of the impugned orders. I have heard learned counsel for the Apparently there does not appear to be any jurisdictional error with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order purely in the interest of justice, besides recovery suit has been filed against the petitioner having availed five opportunities could not was closed by Court order on 10.01.2020 , it was recorded by the Trial Court that 6 by defendant Nos.1 and 2 was In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the submits that the determination of suit involves substantial rights of the parties and in case the petitioner is not afforded an cross-examine PW-5 and PW-6, he also submits that non-appearance of the petitioner/defendant No.1 before the Trial Court on 14.11.2019 for cross bona fide reasons. points out that though the petitioner was effective opportunities for concluding his evidence, however, the whereas respondent No.1/plaintiff took a year to conclude his evidence, thus no sufficient time was given to petitioner/defendant No.1 to conclude his evidence. In such circumstances, learned counsel prays for setting aside of the impugned orders. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the not appear to be any jurisdictional error with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order besides, considering the fact that the petitioner/defendant No.1 at the instance of 2 having availed five opportunities could not 10.01.2020. , it was recorded by the Trial Court that was In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the submits that the determination of suit involves substantial rights of the parties and in case the petitioner is not afforded an , he appearance of the petitioner/defendant No.1 before the Trial Court on 14.11.2019 for cross- points out that though the petitioner was effective opportunities for concluding his evidence, however, the /plaintiff took a year to conclude his evidence, thus no sufficient time was given to In such circumstances, learned and gone through the not appear to be any jurisdictional error with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court while passing the impugned orders, that a at the instance of MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.01 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.326 of 2020 respondent No.1/plaintiff petitioner/defendant substantial prejudice to his rights and defence raised in the written statement his favour so as to conclu own risk and responsibility the Trial Court shall be treated as first opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to lead his evidence and the next chance/date shall be fixed by the Trial Court. same shall, however the petitioner/defendant [6]. In view of above, learned Civil Judge ( revision petition allowed to the above extent. [7]. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed o August August August August 27 27 27 27, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2025555 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable respondent No.1/plaintiff; in case the impugned order petitioner/defendant No.1 is denied an opportunity to lead evidence, he will suffer substantial prejudice to his rights and would not be in a position to substantiate his defence raised in the written statement; two effective so as to conclude his entire documentary as well responsibility. The next date of hearing i.e. shall be treated as first opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to lead his evidence and the next chance/date shall be fixed by the Trial Court. however, be subject to payment of cost(s) of Rs. /defendant No.1 to respondent No.1 In view of above, the impugned order dated Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pathankot revision petition allowed to the above extent. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed o (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) 5555 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No in case the impugned orders are allowed to stand and is denied an opportunity to lead evidence, he will suffer would not be in a position to substantiate his two effective opportunities are granted in de his entire documentary as well as oral evidence at his he next date of hearing i.e. 06.09.2025 fixed before shall be treated as first opportunity to the petitioner/defendant No.1 to lead his evidence and the next chance/date shall be fixed by the Trial Court. The subject to payment of cost(s) of Rs.25,000/- to be paid No.1-plaintiff on the date fixed. order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Pathankot is hereby set aside. Present Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 3 allowed to stand and is denied an opportunity to lead evidence, he will suffer would not be in a position to substantiate his granted in at his fixed before No.1 The be paid by passed by the Present MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.01 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment