IN THE 115 Darshan Singh Nirmal Singh CORAM: Present:- Nidhi Gupta, J 04.12.2023 (A AND to the i application file dismissed. 2. submits that t justice. It is opportunity t controversy in grave injustice will be cause petitioner to prayed that th THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR ingh Vs. gh HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.Saurabh Singla, Advoca for the petitioner. ***** ta, J. Challenge in the present p 3 (Annexure P1) whereby evidenc he impugned order dated 15.03.2 n filed by the petitioner for leading Learned counsel for the at the impugned orders deserve to is submitted that the petitione ty to lead evidence which is sy involved in the civil suit. Denial o stice to the petitioner. It is further used to the respondent if one o to lead the said evidence/addition at the impugned orders be set aside HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5607-2024(O&M) Date of order: 07.01.2025 …..Petitioner(s) …..Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ocate nt petition is to the order dated ence of the petitioner is closed; .03.2024 (Annexure P2) whereby ding additional evidence has been the petitioner/plaintiff inter-alia, e to be set aside in the interest of tioner is craving only one last is essential to decide the real ial of such opportunity will lead to ther submitted that no prejudice e opportunity is granted to the itional evidence. It is accordingly side. 4 (s) (s) ed ed; by en lia, of ast eal to ice he gly SUNENA 2025.01.13 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. have heard le great detail. 4. petitioner tha agreement to respondent/de consideration stated to have respondent/de to get it regist claims to h respondent/de backside of th with mutual u the stipulated extended to 2 However, on of Sub-Registr favour of the p executing and Sahib. It has b and willing to No other argument is mad d learned Counsel for the petitione A perusal of the record ind that he had filed a suit for po t to sell dated 22.06.2020 exe t/defendant to sell land to the peti tion of Rs.5,40,000/-. Out of the s have paid Rs.2 lakhs as earnest mon t/defendant in the presence of wi gistered on 21.05.2021. Thereafter, o have paid remaining amou t/defendant; and writing to this of the second page of the aforesai al understanding, at the request ated date for execution and regis to 21.06.2021. Thereafter, it was fu on 16.08.2021, the defendant did n gistrar, Sri Muktsar Sahib for gettin the petitioner whereas the petitione and getting attested the affidavit fr as been submitted on behalf of the g to perform his part of the agreem made on behalf of the petitioner. I ioner and perused the case file in indicates that it is the case of the possession emanating from an executed and signed by the petitioner/plaintiff for a total sale he said amount, the petitioner is money which was received by the f witnesses who had then agreed fter, on 24.04.2021, the petitioner mount of Rs.3 lakh to the this effect was scribed on the esaid agreement. On 21.05.2021, est of the respondent/defendant egistration of the sale deed was s further extended to 16.08.2021. did not come present in the office etting registered the Sale Deed in tioner got his presence marked by it from Notary Public, Sri Muktsar the petitioner that he is still ready reement. However, despite many 4 r. I in he an he ale is he ed er he he 21, nt as 21. ice in by sar dy ny SUNENA 2025.01.13 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document requests the r petitioner file 5. himself as PW Singh (Attesti examined, an examine witne 04.12.2023 petitioner/pla 19.12.2023, t additional ev Agreement to who are the However, vid learned trial leading addit petitioner alre dated 04.12.2 the petitione additional evid 6. orders. A peru were framed numerous op he respondent did not perform his filed the present suit dated 06.09.2 In respect of his claim the PW1, Parshotam Kumar (Attesting testing Witness) as PW3. The said and counsel for the petitioner itnesses however, learned trial Cou 3 (Annexure P1) had closed /plaintiff and adjourned the m 3, the petitioner moved an ap evidence to summon Lakhwinde t to Sell dated 22.06.2020 and Suk the necessary witnesses to prove vide impugned order dated 15. rial Court dismissed the said app dditional evidence on the ground already stood closed vide order 12.2023 had not been challenged b ioner could not have been gran evidence. Prima facie, I find no error perusal of the order dated 4.12.2023 ed on 13.12.2021; whereafter opportunities, including 4 last op his part of the contract. Thus, the 09.2021 (Annexure P3). the petitioner had duly examined ting Witness) as PW2 and Harnam said witnesses were also cross- ner had sought further time to l Court vide impugned order dated losed the evidence of the e matter to 19.12.2023. On application (Annexure P4) for inder Singh Advocate to prove Sukhjinder Singh, Stamp Vendor rove the case of the petitioner. 15.03.2024 (Annexure P2), the application of the petitioner for ounds that: a) evidence of the der dated 04.12.2023; and order ed by the petitioner; and as such granted opportunity for leading rror is made out in the impugned 2023 shows that issues in the case ter the petitioner was granted st opportunities, to produce and 4 he ed am - to ed he On for ve or er. he for he er ch ing ed se ed nd SUNENA 2025.01.13 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document conclude his evidence of th order dated 4. and cannot be 7. is made out a dated 4.12.20 that once evi leading additio 8. 25.09.2024, le ordinate Benc said order has in the interest 03.01.2025, w complete and 9. 10. of. 07.01.2025 Sunena Whether Whether his evidence. Yet, the petitioner h of the petitioner was closed after a d 4.12.2023. The Rules of Procedur t be allowed to be misused to delay Even no ground for interfe ut as it is admitted that petitioner 2.2023 whereby his evidence was evidence of the petitioner is clos ditional evidence? It is further pertinent to , learned counsel for the petitione ench of this Court to place on rec has not been complied with by the rest of justice, this Court has down , which reveal that examination and cross-examination of DW1 has b In view of the above, the Pending application(s) if an ther speaking/reasoned ther reportable er had failed to do so. As such er almost 2 years, vide impugned dure are the handmaids of Justice elay proceedings. erference in the impugned orders ner has not challenged the order as closed. It is but trite to state closed, where is the question of t to note that vide order dated tioner had been directed by a Co- record all the zimni orders. The the petitioner till date. However, ownloaded the zimni orders up to ion-in-chief of DW1 and DW2 is has been partially completed. he present petition is dismissed. if any shall also stand(s) disposed (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Yes/No Yes/No 4 ch ed ice ers er ate of ed - he er, to is ed SUNENA 2025.01.13 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document