IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 114 CR-2415-2026 Date of Decision.:13.03.2026 Jagdish Singh Rehal …..Pe--oner Vs. Awtar Singh Rehal and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Nippun Sharma, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision peon has been filed by defendant No.1 of Civil Suit No. 4196 of 2018 tled ‘Awtar Singh Rehal vs. Jagdish Singh Rehal’, pending before Ld. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/NRI Court, Jalandhar. He has assailed the order dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure P-11), passed by the trial court, whereby his applicaon under Secon 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking discarding of the alleged power of a:orney/vakalatnama, wri:en statement, reply to stay applicaon and subsequent replies filed through Ms. Monika, Advocate, was dismissed. 2. Briefly noced, the peoner–defendant No.1 moved an applicaon before the trial Court contending that he had never engaged Ms. Monika, Advocate to represent him in the suit and had not signed the power of a:orney, wri:en statement or replies filed in the proceedings. It was alleged that the signatures appearing on those documents were forged and that the said counsel had appeared without his authorizaon. On this basis, a prayer was made that the power of a:orney/vakalatnama and pleadings filed on his behalf be discarded. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.13 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2415-2026 3. The applicaon was contested by the other pares, who submi:ed that the applicaon had been moved only with an intenon to delay the proceedings. It was pointed out that the counsel in queson had been represenng the peoner since the year 2018 and had acvely parcipated in the proceedings, including cross-examinaon of witnesses on behalf of the peoner. 4. ABer hearing the pares and examining the record, the learned trial Court dismissed the applicaon observing that the power of a:orney and wri:en statement had been filed on behalf of the peoner as far back as 23.07.2018, and thereaBer, the counsel connued to represent him throughout the proceedings. The Court also noced that the peoner himself had appeared before the Court as a witness on 27.05.2024, which clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the proceedings. The trial Court further observed that despite such knowledge, the present applicaon was filed only on 03.10.2025, without any plausible explanaon for the inordinate delay. The Court also recorded that the peoner had neither sought comparison of the alleged forged signatures with his admi:ed signatures nor iniated any civil or criminal proceedings against the counsel, who allegedly represented him without authority. On these grounds, the applicaon was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the peoner submits that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the allegaon of forgery and ought to have ordered an inquiry before rejecng the applicaon. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the peoner and have perused the paper-book. 7. From the record, it is evident that the counsel in queson had been represenng the peoner since 2018, had filed wri:en statement and other pleadings on his behalf and had also cross-examined witnesses of the plainff. The proceedings thereaBer connued for several years and the case had reached the stage of rebu:al evidence. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.13 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2415-2026 8. Significantly, the peoner himself appeared before the Court on 27.05.2024 and parcipated in the proceedings. Despite being aware of the pendency and progress of the case, he chose to file the present applicaon only on 03.10.2025, i.e. aBer a lapse of several years. The belated challenge to the authority of counsel, without any supporng material, clearly indicates that the applicaon was moved with an oblique move. 9. It is equally noteworthy that the peoner did not take any steps to substanate the allegaon of forgery. No applicaon for comparison of signatures by a handwring expert was moved and no criminal complaint or civil acon was iniated against the concerned counsel. In the absence of any such steps, the bald allegaon of forgery made at a highly belated stage cannot be accepted. 10. The conduct of the peoner, therefore, clearly suggests that the present applicaon was filed only to retract the stand already taken in the wri:en statement and to delay the proceedings of the suit, which had reached an advanced stage. Such conduct amounts to an abuse of the process of Court and cannot be encouraged. 11. It is well se:led that the scope of revisional jurisdicon under Secon 115 CPC is well se:led and circumscribed. The High Court does not funcon as an appellate forum over orders passed by subordinate Courts. Its jurisdicon is essenally supervisory and is confined to correcng jurisdiconal errors. Interference is jusfied only where the subordinate Court has exercised jurisdicon not vested in it by law, has failed to exercise jurisdicon so vested, or has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of such jurisdicon. The revisional Court is, therefore, concerned with the legality and jurisdiconal propriety of the impugned order and cannot re-assess the evidence or substute its own view merely because another view on the facts may be possible. 12. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.13 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2415-2026 finds that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is based upon proper appreciaon of the material available on record. No jurisdiconal error, illegality or material irregularity has been pointed out which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdicon. 13. On the contrary, the applicaon filed by the peoner appears to be a belated a:empt to derail the proceedings of the suit. Courts cannot permit ligants to resile from their own pleadings aBer several years of parcipaon in the proceedings, parcularly when such a plea is unsupported by any credible material. 14. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision peon, the same is dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 13, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.13 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document