IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 112 CR-6846-2023 Date of Decision.:25.09.2025 Sangita Rani …..Pe,,oner Vs. M/s Shalimar Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The peoner is one of the defendants in Civil Suit No. CS- 46451-2013 tled Shalimar Town Planner Pvt. Ltd. v. Shyambir & Ors., pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad. She assails the order dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P-11), whereby the trial Court allowed the plainff’s applicaon under Secon 151 CPC seeking re-examinaon of PW-3 Sh. D.P. Khatana, and PW-5 Jai Shankar, its authorized representave. 2. The record reveals that the plainff instuted the suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 07.10.2007. During the proceedings, it moved an applicaon under Secon 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to lead secondary evidence of the said agreement and receipts, alleging that these documents had been seized during a raid by the Income Tax Department in 2007. The trial Court inially dismissed the applicaon on 23.01.2017. However, in CR-1076-2017, a co- ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure P-6), NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.26 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6846-2023 -2- permi>ed the plainff to adduce secondary evidence, while clarifying that admissibility would be examined at the final stage. By that me, however, the plainff had already concluded its evidence. Consequently, it sought re- examinaon of PW-3 and PW-5 by moving applicaon (Annexure P-9), which has now been allowed. 3. The grievance of the peoner is that neither PW-3 and PW-5 have any relevance to the agreement nor are the receipts untenable. As rightly observed, PW-3 Shri D.P. Khatana is the scribe of the agreement to sell and the receipt of earnest money, having signed both documents. His tesmony is therefore germane to their proof. PW-5 Shri Jai Shankar, being the authorized representave of the plainff, is required to prove the seizure memo prepared by the Income Tax Department, evidencing that the originals were taken into custody. His re-examinaon is thus confined to proving that collateral document, and not to re-establish the execuon of the agreement itself. 4. In these circumstances, no illegality or perversity can be a>ributed to the trial Court’s order permiAng their limited re-examinaon. The trial Court has further safeguarded the defendants’ rights by recording that admissibility of the documents shall be determined only at the stage of final arguments. 5. As such, finding no ground to interfere, the present peon is held to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE September 25, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.26 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document