CR-9391-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sandeep Sharma and Another Sita Devi CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. (through Video Conferening) MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by Sandeep Sharma and Neeraj Sharma, defendants in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2022 titled Sita Devi versus Sandeep Sharma and another, against Sita Devi, plaintiff therein. 2. The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Consti 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalka, District Panchkula, whereby the application moved by the defendants under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine additional evidence evidence was dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, the specific court order dated 27.03.2025 after availing more than ten effective opportunities. The said order closing the evidence was defendants by way of any appropriate proceedings. Thereafter, the defendants moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine two additional witnesses, namely the previous owner of the land and the village Lambardar, contending that their examination was necessary for just adjudication (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : Sandeep Sharma and Another VERSUS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Neeraj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conferening) -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present civil revision petition has been filed by Sandeep Sharma and Neeraj Sharma, defendants in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2022 titled Sita Devi versus Sandeep Sharma and another, against Sita Devi, plaintiff therein. The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalka, District Panchkula, whereby the application moved by the defendants under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine additional evidence evidence was dismissed. Briefly stated, the evidence of defendants in the suit was closed by a specific court order dated 27.03.2025 after availing more than ten effective opportunities. The said order closing the evidence was defendants by way of any appropriate proceedings. Thereafter, the defendants moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine two additional witnesses, namely the previous owner of the land and the village ardar, contending that their examination was necessary for just adjudication -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-9391-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 12.01.2026 ....Petitioners ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. The present civil revision petition has been filed by Sandeep Sharma and Neeraj Sharma, defendants in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2022 titled Sita Devi versus Sandeep Sharma and another, against Sita Devi, plaintiff therein. The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court tution of India, challenging the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalka, District Panchkula, whereby the application moved by the defendants under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine additional evidence after closure of defence defendants in the suit was closed by a specific court order dated 27.03.2025 after availing more than ten effective opportunities. The said order closing the evidence was never assailed by the defendants by way of any appropriate proceedings. Thereafter, the defendants moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine two additional witnesses, namely the previous owner of the land and the village ardar, contending that their examination was necessary for just adjudication - The present civil revision petition has been filed by Sandeep Sharma and Neeraj Sharma, defendants in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2022 titled Sita Devi versus The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court tution of India, challenging the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalka, District Panchkula, whereby the application moved by the defendants under Section 151 after closure of defence defendants in the suit was closed by a specific court order dated 27.03.2025 after availing more than ten effective never assailed by the defendants by way of any appropriate proceedings. Thereafter, the defendants moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine two additional witnesses, namely the previous owner of the land and the village ardar, contending that their examination was necessary for just adjudication TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9391-2025 (O&M) of the case. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that it was a belated attempt to reopen the defence evidence and to delay the proceedings. 4. The lea record, dismissed the application by recording a categorical finding that the defendants had availed sufficient opportunities, that no explanation whatsoever was furnished as to why the proposed w that no new or subsequent circumstance had arisen warranting recall of the order closing the defence evidence. It was further held that the application was an afterthought intended to delay the proceedings and wa 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before this Court that the Trial Court adopted a hyper that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the additional witnesses were examined, as she would have an opportunity to cross been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in vs. N. Palanisamy advance the cause of justi 6. Since short controversy is involved in the present petition, no notice is required to be issued 7. This Court has considered the submissions and has carefully examined the impugned order as well as the record. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over discretiona is warranted only where there is patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of justice. 8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the defence evidence was closed by a jud (O&M) of the case. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that it was a belated attempt to reopen the defence evidence and to delay the proceedings. The learned Trial Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, dismissed the application by recording a categorical finding that the defendants had availed sufficient opportunities, that no explanation whatsoever was furnished as to why the proposed witnesses could not be examined earlier, and that no new or subsequent circumstance had arisen warranting recall of the order closing the defence evidence. It was further held that the application was an afterthought intended to delay the proceedings and wa Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before this Court that the Trial Court adopted a hyper-technical approach and failed to appreciate that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the additional witnesses were examined, as she would have an opportunity to cross been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in vs. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275 to contend that procedural law should advance the cause of justice. Since short controversy is involved in the present petition, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent. This Court has considered the submissions and has carefully examined the impugned order as well as the record. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over discretionary orders passed by is warranted only where there is patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of justice. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the defence evidence was closed by a judicial order after granting more than adequate opportunities. The -2- of the case. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that it was a belated attempt to reopen the defence evidence and to delay the proceedings. rned Trial Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, dismissed the application by recording a categorical finding that the defendants had availed sufficient opportunities, that no explanation whatsoever itnesses could not be examined earlier, and that no new or subsequent circumstance had arisen warranting recall of the order closing the defence evidence. It was further held that the application was an afterthought intended to delay the proceedings and was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before this Court technical approach and failed to appreciate that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the additional witnesses were examined, as she would have an opportunity to cross-examine them. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy to contend that procedural law should Since short controversy is involved in the present petition, no notice is This Court has considered the submissions and has carefully examined the impugned order as well as the record. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. This Court does ry orders passed by lower courts and interference is warranted only where there is patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest In the present case, it is an admitted position that the defence evidence icial order after granting more than adequate opportunities. The - of the case. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that it was a belated attempt to reopen the defence evidence and to delay the proceedings. rned Trial Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, dismissed the application by recording a categorical finding that the defendants had availed sufficient opportunities, that no explanation whatsoever itnesses could not be examined earlier, and that no new or subsequent circumstance had arisen warranting recall of the order closing the defence evidence. It was further held that the application was an Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before this Court technical approach and failed to appreciate that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the additional witnesses were examine them. Reliance has K.K. Velusamy to contend that procedural law should Since short controversy is involved in the present petition, no notice is This Court has considered the submissions and has carefully examined the impugned order as well as the record. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. This Court does courts and interference is warranted only where there is patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest In the present case, it is an admitted position that the defence evidence icial order after granting more than adequate opportunities. The TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-9391-2025 (O&M) petitioners neither challenged that order nor sought its recall by disclosing any legally sustainable reason. The application for additional evidence does not disclose any new fact, subsequen have been anticipated during the defence evidence. The proposed witnesses were neither newly discovered nor shown to be unavailable earlier. The plea of “just adjudication” cannot be used as a tool to reopen pr particularly when the party seeking indulgence has been grossly negligent. 9. The reliance placed upon misplaced. The said judgment itself cautions that inherent powers cannot be exercised to reopen evidence as a matter of routine or to undo the consequences of deliberate inaction or negligence. Discretion under Section 151 CPC is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, none of which are present in the case at hand. 10. The learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously, after considering the stage of the trial, conduct of the defendants, and the absence of any plausible explanation for the delay. No perversity, illegality or failure of justice is discernible in the impugned order. Allowing such applications at this stage would defeat procedural discipline and frustrate timely adjudication. 11. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil present civil revision petition is dismissed, being devoid of merit. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. January 12, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) petitioners neither challenged that order nor sought its recall by disclosing any legally sustainable reason. The application for additional evidence does not disclose any new fact, subsequent development or circumstance which could not have been anticipated during the defence evidence. The proposed witnesses were neither newly discovered nor shown to be unavailable earlier. The plea of “just adjudication” cannot be used as a tool to reopen pr particularly when the party seeking indulgence has been grossly negligent. The reliance placed upon K.K. Velusamy misplaced. The said judgment itself cautions that inherent powers cannot be reopen evidence as a matter of routine or to undo the consequences of deliberate inaction or negligence. Discretion under Section 151 CPC is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, none of which are present in the case at hand. The learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously, after considering the stage of the trial, conduct of the defendants, and the absence of any plausible explanation for the delay. No perversity, illegality or failure of justice is ble in the impugned order. Allowing such applications at this stage would defeat procedural discipline and frustrate timely adjudication. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalka. The present civil revision petition is dismissed, being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2026 ( Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- petitioners neither challenged that order nor sought its recall by disclosing any legally sustainable reason. The application for additional evidence does not t development or circumstance which could not have been anticipated during the defence evidence. The proposed witnesses were neither newly discovered nor shown to be unavailable earlier. The plea of “just adjudication” cannot be used as a tool to reopen proceedings indefinitely, particularly when the party seeking indulgence has been grossly negligent. K.K. Velusamy’s case (supra) is wholly misplaced. The said judgment itself cautions that inherent powers cannot be reopen evidence as a matter of routine or to undo the consequences of deliberate inaction or negligence. Discretion under Section 151 CPC is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, none of which are The learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously, after considering the stage of the trial, conduct of the defendants, and the absence of any plausible explanation for the delay. No perversity, illegality or failure of justice is ble in the impugned order. Allowing such applications at this stage would defeat procedural discipline and frustrate timely adjudication. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order Judge (Junior Division), Kalka. The present civil revision petition is dismissed, being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - petitioners neither challenged that order nor sought its recall by disclosing any legally sustainable reason. The application for additional evidence does not t development or circumstance which could not have been anticipated during the defence evidence. The proposed witnesses were neither newly discovered nor shown to be unavailable earlier. The plea of “just oceedings indefinitely, is wholly misplaced. The said judgment itself cautions that inherent powers cannot be reopen evidence as a matter of routine or to undo the consequences of deliberate inaction or negligence. Discretion under Section 151 CPC is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, none of which are The learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously, after considering the stage of the trial, conduct of the defendants, and the absence of any plausible explanation for the delay. No perversity, illegality or failure of justice is ble in the impugned order. Allowing such applications at this stage would Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order Judge (Junior Division), Kalka. The TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document