CR-7503-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH Sunil Dhawan And Others Anil Dhawan And Another CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. R.S.Bajaj MANDEEP PANNU 1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby the evidence of the petitioners–defendants was ordered to be closed by court order. Brief Facts 2. The brief facts necessary for that the respondent immovable properties left behind by the father of petitioner No.1, claiming one third share each, along with consequential reli restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, alienating or creating any charge beyond their respective shares. A further declaration was sought to the effect that the transfer deed executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of No.3 is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided Sunil Dhawan And Others VERSUS And Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby the evidence of the defendants was ordered to be closed by court order. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent–plaintiff filed a suit for partition by metes and bounds of all the immovable properties left behind by the father of petitioner No.1, claiming one third share each, along with consequential reli restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, alienating or creating any charge beyond their respective shares. A further declaration was sought to the effect that the transfer deed executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of No.3 is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. -1- OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7503-2025 (O&M) Decided on:-28.10.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioners. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the for setting aside the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby the evidence of the defendants was ordered to be closed by court order. adjudication of the present petition are plaintiff filed a suit for partition by metes and bounds of all the immovable properties left behind by the father of petitioner No.1, claiming one third share each, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, alienating or creating any charge beyond their respective shares. A further declaration was sought to the effect that the transfer deed executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.3 is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the for setting aside the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby the evidence of the adjudication of the present petition are plaintiff filed a suit for partition by metes and bounds of all the immovable properties left behind by the father of petitioner No.1, claiming one- ef of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, alienating or creating any charge beyond their respective shares. A further declaration was sought to the petitioner TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7503-2025 (O&M) 3. The petitioners claim and subsequently filed a written statement to the amended plaint also. After framing of issu evidence commenced on 04.10.2022 and continued for more than two and a half years. Ultimately, as the plaintiff failed to conclude the same, his evidence was closed by order dated 04.04.2025, evidence. During the course of their evidence, the defendants examined certain witnesses, including DW2 Inderjit Singh, Chartered Accountant of M/s Inderjit Singh & Associates, and DW Jatinder Singh, Clerk from t DW Jatinder Singh appeared on 23.07.2025, he could not be examined for want of record and was bound down for the next date, i.e. 06.08.2025. However, on that date, he did not appear, and hence, bailable warrants were issued against hi DW2 Inderjit Singh, who was present, was examined examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the plaintiff. dates, petitioner No.1 and his paternal aunt Smt. Kiran Rani also appeared and were examined in the plaintiff’s request and the case was adjourned to 16.09.2025. 11.09.2025, petitioner No.1 suffered a brain stroke and was admitted in NHS Hospital, Jalandhar to his serious medical condition and hospitalization, neither petitioner No.1 nor his aunt could appear for cross exemption from personal appearance was allowed the matter was adjourned to 30.09.2025. No.1, as supported by medical records and prescription slips (Annexures P 2025 (O&M) The petitioners–defendants filed their written statement contesting the claim and subsequently filed a written statement to the amended plaint also. After framing of issues, the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence. evidence commenced on 04.10.2022 and continued for more than two and a half years. Ultimately, as the plaintiff failed to conclude the same, his evidence was closed by order dated 04.04.2025, and the case was adjourned for defendants’ During the course of their evidence, the defendants examined certain witnesses, including DW2 Inderjit Singh, Chartered Accountant of M/s Inderjit Singh & Associates, and DW Jatinder Singh, Clerk from t DW Jatinder Singh appeared on 23.07.2025, he could not be examined for want of record and was bound down for the next date, i.e. 06.08.2025. However, on that date, he did not appear, and hence, bailable warrants were issued against hi DW2 Inderjit Singh, who was present, was examined examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the plaintiff. dates, petitioner No.1 and his paternal aunt Smt. Kiran Rani also appeared and were examined in chief on 05.09.2025. Their cross the plaintiff’s request and the case was adjourned to 16.09.2025. 11.09.2025, petitioner No.1 suffered a brain stroke and was admitted in NHS Hospital, Jalandhar City, where he remained under treatment till 16.09.2025. Due to his serious medical condition and hospitalization, neither petitioner No.1 nor his aunt could appear for cross-examination on that date. An application seeking exemption from personal appearance was allowed the matter was adjourned to 30.09.2025. Despite the genuine illness of petitioner No.1, as supported by medical records and prescription slips (Annexures P -2- defendants filed their written statement contesting the claim and subsequently filed a written statement to the amended plaint also. After es, the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence. The plaintiff’s evidence commenced on 04.10.2022 and continued for more than two and a half years. Ultimately, as the plaintiff failed to conclude the same, his evidence was and the case was adjourned for defendants’ During the course of their evidence, the defendants examined certain witnesses, including DW2 Inderjit Singh, Chartered Accountant of M/s Inderjit Singh & Associates, and DW Jatinder Singh, Clerk from the HRC Branch. Though DW Jatinder Singh appeared on 23.07.2025, he could not be examined for want of record and was bound down for the next date, i.e. 06.08.2025. However, on that date, he did not appear, and hence, bailable warrants were issued against hi DW2 Inderjit Singh, who was present, was examined-in-chief, but his cross examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the plaintiff. On subsequent dates, petitioner No.1 and his paternal aunt Smt. Kiran Rani also appeared and chief on 05.09.2025. Their cross-examination was deferred on the plaintiff’s request and the case was adjourned to 16.09.2025. Unfortunately, on 11.09.2025, petitioner No.1 suffered a brain stroke and was admitted in NHS remained under treatment till 16.09.2025. Due to his serious medical condition and hospitalization, neither petitioner No.1 nor his examination on that date. An application seeking exemption from personal appearance was allowed by the learned Trial Court, and Despite the genuine illness of petitioner No.1, as supported by medical records and prescription slips (Annexures P-2, P defendants filed their written statement contesting the claim and subsequently filed a written statement to the amended plaint also. After The plaintiff’s evidence commenced on 04.10.2022 and continued for more than two and a half years. Ultimately, as the plaintiff failed to conclude the same, his evidence was and the case was adjourned for defendants’ During the course of their evidence, the defendants examined certain witnesses, including DW2 Inderjit Singh, Chartered Accountant of M/s Inderjit he HRC Branch. Though DW Jatinder Singh appeared on 23.07.2025, he could not be examined for want of record and was bound down for the next date, i.e. 06.08.2025. However, on that date, he did not appear, and hence, bailable warrants were issued against him. chief, but his cross- On subsequent dates, petitioner No.1 and his paternal aunt Smt. Kiran Rani also appeared and examination was deferred on Unfortunately, on 11.09.2025, petitioner No.1 suffered a brain stroke and was admitted in NHS remained under treatment till 16.09.2025. Due to his serious medical condition and hospitalization, neither petitioner No.1 nor his examination on that date. An application seeking by the learned Trial Court, and Despite the genuine illness of petitioner 2, P-5, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7503-2025 (O&M) and P-11), the learned trial Court, without properly apprec condition and the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners, closed the defendants’ evidence by order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P Submissions of Counsel for the Petitioners 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits intentional or deliberate default on the part of the petitioners in not concluding their evidence. The absence of petitioner No.1 and his witness was caused purely by unavoidable medical circumstances. Singh is a summoned witness who has already been examined in chief, and his cross-examination remains pending only due to the plaintiff’s adjournments. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be penalized for the non a summoned wit mechanically, without due consideration of the medical record and without balancing the cause of justice with procedural discipline. 5. Notice in the matter is not required the nature of the relief sought Findings of this Court 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the defendants were granted several opportunities to September 2025 were exceptional and beyond their control. 7. The medical prescription and hospitalization record clearly indicate that petitioner No.1 suffered a brain stroke and partial paralysis, which rend 2025 (O&M) 11), the learned trial Court, without properly apprec condition and the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners, closed the defendants’ evidence by order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P Submissions of Counsel for the Petitioners Learned counsel for the petitioners submits intentional or deliberate default on the part of the petitioners in not concluding their evidence. The absence of petitioner No.1 and his witness was caused purely by unavoidable medical circumstances. It is further contended that DW2 Ind Singh is a summoned witness who has already been examined in chief, and his examination remains pending only due to the plaintiff’s adjournments. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be penalized for the non a summoned witness. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned order mechanically, without due consideration of the medical record and without balancing the cause of justice with procedural discipline. Notice in the matter is not required the nature of the relief sought. Findings of this Court After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the defendants were granted several opportunities to lead evidence, the circumstances prevailing in September 2025 were exceptional and beyond their control. The medical prescription and hospitalization record clearly indicate that petitioner No.1 suffered a brain stroke and partial paralysis, which rend -3- 11), the learned trial Court, without properly appreciating the medical condition and the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners, closed the defendants’ evidence by order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-13). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no intentional or deliberate default on the part of the petitioners in not concluding their evidence. The absence of petitioner No.1 and his witness was caused purely It is further contended that DW2 Inderjit Singh is a summoned witness who has already been examined in chief, and his examination remains pending only due to the plaintiff’s adjournments. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be penalized for the non-appearance or default of ness. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned order mechanically, without due consideration of the medical record and without balancing the cause of justice with procedural discipline. Notice in the matter is not required to be issued at this stage in view of After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the defendants were lead evidence, the circumstances prevailing in September 2025 were exceptional and beyond their control. The medical prescription and hospitalization record clearly indicate that petitioner No.1 suffered a brain stroke and partial paralysis, which rendered iating the medical condition and the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners, closed the that there was no intentional or deliberate default on the part of the petitioners in not concluding their evidence. The absence of petitioner No.1 and his witness was caused purely erjit Singh is a summoned witness who has already been examined in chief, and his examination remains pending only due to the plaintiff’s adjournments. appearance or default of ness. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned order mechanically, without due consideration of the medical record and without tage in view of After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the defendants were lead evidence, the circumstances prevailing in The medical prescription and hospitalization record clearly indicate ered TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7503-2025 (O&M) him medically unfit to appear in Court or coordinate with his counsel for the preparation and completion of evidence. 8. It is a well justice, and technicalities should not defeat substantive rig shown is bona fide and duly substantiated by medical evidence. The object of the Court should be to advance justice rather than to thwart it on mere procedural grounds. 9. The order dated 30.09.2025 does not reflect any conscious consideration of the medical documents placed on record. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, resulting in prejudice to the petitioners who have yet to complete their evidence. 10. Even otherwise, the cross pending at the instance of the plaintiff’s counsel, and therefore, the burden of such delay cannot be placed upon the defendants. 11. In these circumstances, this Court finds it just and proper to grant the petitioners a final opport imposing reasonable costs to compensate the other side for the delay. Conclusion 12. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Jalandhar is set aside. opportunities to the petitioners including the cross 2025 (O&M) him medically unfit to appear in Court or coordinate with his counsel for the preparation and completion of evidence. It is a well-settled principle that procedural laws are handmaid of justice, and technicalities should not defeat substantive rig shown is bona fide and duly substantiated by medical evidence. The object of the Court should be to advance justice rather than to thwart it on mere procedural The order dated 30.09.2025 does not reflect any conscious eration of the medical documents placed on record. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, resulting in prejudice to the petitioners who have yet to complete their evidence. Even otherwise, the cross-examination o pending at the instance of the plaintiff’s counsel, and therefore, the burden of such delay cannot be placed upon the defendants. In these circumstances, this Court finds it just and proper to grant the petitioners a final opportunity to complete their evidence, while at the same time imposing reasonable costs to compensate the other side for the delay. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Jalandhar is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to grant two effective opportunities to the petitioners–defendants to conclude their entire evidence, including the cross-examination of the witnesses already examin -4- him medically unfit to appear in Court or coordinate with his counsel for the settled principle that procedural laws are handmaid of justice, and technicalities should not defeat substantive rights when the cause shown is bona fide and duly substantiated by medical evidence. The object of the Court should be to advance justice rather than to thwart it on mere procedural The order dated 30.09.2025 does not reflect any conscious eration of the medical documents placed on record. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, resulting in prejudice to the petitioners who have yet to complete their evidence. examination of DW2 and DW3 remains pending at the instance of the plaintiff’s counsel, and therefore, the burden of such In these circumstances, this Court finds it just and proper to grant the unity to complete their evidence, while at the same time imposing reasonable costs to compensate the other side for the delay. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), The learned trial Court is directed to grant two effective defendants to conclude their entire evidence, examination of the witnesses already examined, subject to him medically unfit to appear in Court or coordinate with his counsel for the settled principle that procedural laws are handmaid of hts when the cause shown is bona fide and duly substantiated by medical evidence. The object of the Court should be to advance justice rather than to thwart it on mere procedural The order dated 30.09.2025 does not reflect any conscious eration of the medical documents placed on record. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, resulting in prejudice to f DW2 and DW3 remains pending at the instance of the plaintiff’s counsel, and therefore, the burden of such In these circumstances, this Court finds it just and proper to grant the unity to complete their evidence, while at the same time The impugned Civil Judge (Junior Division), The learned trial Court is directed to grant two effective defendants to conclude their entire evidence, ed, subject to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7503-2025 (O&M) payment of ₹3,000/ fixed before the trial Court. 13. It is, however, made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioners beyond these two opportunities, be at liberty to close their evidence by order. 14. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. October 28, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) ₹3,000/- as costs to the respondent– fixed before the trial Court. It is, however, made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioners beyond these two opportunities, be at liberty to close their evidence by order. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- –plaintiff on or before the next date It is, however, made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioners beyond these two opportunities, failing which the trial Court shall The revision petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE plaintiff on or before the next date It is, however, made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted failing which the trial Court shall The revision petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document