CR-4932-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 139 CR-4932-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.07.2026 Sukhbir ....Petitioner Vs. M/s Indus Tower Limited through its Manager ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. Sandeep Siwach, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral) 1 Prayer in the present civil revision petition, inter alia, is for setting aside the order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for additional evidence by directing the defendants in the suit to cross-examine the plaintiffs witness (PW-1) has been dismissed. 1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure P-4), whereby the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff was closed by Court order. 2. Briefly, the present petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- against respondent (M/s Indus Tower Limited) on the plea that vide lease deed dated 11.12.2015, M/s Indus Tower Limited had taken a plot of the petitioner-Sukhbir, situated at village Nandnaur, Sonepat on lease for using the same @ Rs.15,000/- per month. It was pleaded by the petitioner that an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- was due from the defendant-M/s Indus Tower Limited on account of rent; accordingly, the ANKIT 2026.07.07 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR-4932-2026 (O&M) -2- suit (Annexure P-1) for recovery was filed by the petitioner. The respondent (M/s Indus Tower Limited) appeared in the aforesaid suit and contested the same by filing its written statement (Annexure P-2). 3. It appears that the present petitioner-Sukhbir examined himself as PW-1 before the learned Trial Court when the matter was taken up on 11.05.2022. However, his cross-examination was deferred on the request of the learned counsel for the defendant (M/s Indus Tower Limited) and the matter was adjourned to 19.10.2022 for cross-examination of the deferred witness i.e. present petitioner as well as for evidence on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner. 3.1 Thereafter, the matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 20.03.2023, on which date the petitioner changed his earlier counsel Mr. R.S. Dahiya, and engaged a new counsel Mr. Pardeep Vats, who appeared on his behalf, however, the petitioner did not present himself for the purpose of cross-examination; accordingly the matter was adjourned to 13.04.2023 again for cross-examination of the deferred witness as well as the other evidence on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner. On the adjourned date i.e. 13.04.2023, again the petitioner did not present himself for cross-examination and on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, the matter was again adjourned to 10.05.2023 and the same was the position on the subsequent dates as well i.e. 10.05.2023 and 28.07.2023; consequently, the following order came to be passed by the learned Trial Court:- “Today the case was fixed for evidence on behalf of plaintiff. No PW is present. Adjournment requested. Heard and allowed. Now, the case is adjourned to 01.12.2023 for cross- ANKIT 2026.07.07 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR-4932-2026 (O&M) -3- examination of deferred witness as well as remaining evidence of plaintiff. It shall be the last opportunity. It is made clear to plaintiff that in case no evidence of the plaintiff is present and examined on the next date of hearing, the evidence of the plaintiff would be closed by court order. Long date is given due to heavy pendency of cases and to prioritize the old cases. (Jap Ji Singh) CJ(JD), Sonipat UID No.HR0548 Date of order: 28.07.2023” 3.2 Thereafter, on the adjourned date i.e. 01.12.2023, since the petitioner did not present himself for cross-examination, the learned Trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner by Court order, the relevant extract of the order dated 01.12.2023, reads as under:- “Today the case was fixed for evidence on behalf of plaintiff. No PW is present. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has requested for an adjournment. Heard. A perusal of the file shows that plaintiff has failed to conclude his evidence despite several opportunities to lead the evidence. No sufficient ground for adjournment has been pleaded by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Hence, evidence of the plaintiff is hereby closed by court order. Proceedings are now adjourned to 04.01.2024 for evidence of defendant. (Jap Ji Singh) CJ(JD), Sonipat UID No.HR0548 Date of order: 01.12.2023” 4. It transpires that, thereafter, the defendant in the suit lead its evidence and the defendant’s evidence was closed on 12.05.2025, ANKIT 2026.07.07 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR-4932-2026 (O&M) -4- whereupon the learned Trial Court fixed the matter for rebuttal evidence, if any, and otherwise for arguments. 4.1 At that stage, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Trial Court under Section 151 CPC, for leading additional evidence, by directing the defendant in the suit to cross-examine the petitioner/plaintiff (PW-1), which had been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-7). 5. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, present civil revision petition has been filed before this Court, for seeking relief(s) as noted hereinabove. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paperbook with his able assistance. 7. Apparently, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- along with interest in the year 2019. The defendant in the suit appeared and contested the suit by filing its written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to lead the evidence wherein, he examined himself as PW-1, however, despite grant of various opportunities, petitioner did not present himself for cross-examination by the defendant in the suit. Even after, the learned Trial Court granted a last opportunity vide order dated 28.07.2023 (as noticed above), the petitioner again failed to appear on the adjourned date for cross-examination. Consequently, the learned Trial Court was constrained to close the plaintiff/petitioner evidence by Court order, vide order dated 01.12.2023. 7.1 It transpires that the petitioner did not raise any challenge to the aforesaid order dated 01.12.2023, whereby his evidence was closed by Court ANKIT 2026.07.07 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR-4932-2026 (O&M) -5- order and quietly waited for the evidence of the defendants to be led. It is not disputed before this Court that the evidence of the defendants in the suit was closed on 12.05.2025 and thereafter, when the matter was at the stage of rebuttal evidence/arguments, the petitioner filed an application for leading additional evidence, which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-7), on the ground that since the petitioner had failed to lead his evidence in his favour despite grant of multiple opportunities and matter having reached the stage of rebuttal evidence, there was no merit in his application. 8. It has been laid time and again that a party to a suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure. A party has to be more serious and vigilant in prosecuting and producing evidence. Thus, deprecating grant of further opportunity to a party to lead evidence and branding the same as misplaced sympathy, where despite opportunities the said party had failed to lead evidence, Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Private Limited and Others 2011 SCC Online SC 1175, has held as follows: “xxx xxx xxx 14. Second, and equally important, the High Court upset the concurrent judgment and decree of the two courts on misplaced sympathy and non-existent justification. The High Court observed that the stakes in the suit being very high, the plaintiff should not be non-suited on the basis of no evidence. But who is to be blamed for this lapse' It is the plaintiff alone. As a matter of fact, the trial court had given more than sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to produce evidence in support of its case. As noticed above, after the issues were framed on 19-7- 2006, on three occasions, the trial court fixed the matter for the plaintiff's evidence but on none of these dates any evidence was ANKIT 2026.07.07 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR-4932-2026 (O&M) -6- let in by it. What should the court do in such circumstances' Is the court obliged to give adjournment after adjournment merely because the stakes are high in the dispute' Should the court be a silent spectator and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward? 15. It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek-and the courts grant- adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the Judges are little proactive and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. It is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. The case in hand is a case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realise that adjournments do dent the efficacy of the judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit... ” 9. From aforementioned facts it is apparent that, the petitioner has been sheerly negligent in leading his evidence despite grant of multiple opportunities including the last opportunity. The petitioner failed to present himself before the learned Trial Court, for his cross-examination by the defendant on five occasions and ultimately, the evidence of the petitioner was closed by Court order on 01.12.2023. The petitioner chose to remain silent as he never challenged the said order dated 01.12.2023, which attained finality. Thereafter, the defendant in the suit lead its evidence, which was ultimately closed on 12.05.2025, and when the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence/arguments, then the petitioner filed application for leading ANKIT 2026.07.07 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR-4932-2026 (O&M) -7- additional evidence, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-7), by observing that the case was at the advance stage and there was no merit in the plea. 10. No doubt, the right to examine and cross-examine is a valuable right. However, if a party chooses to adopt dilatory tactics and refuses to examine a witness or fails to put forth its witnesses for cross-examination, despite various opportunities, without any due justification, on repeated occasions, then, no leniency can be shown to such a party. 11. Now realising the fact, that once the petitioner’s evidence has already been closed by Court order on 01.12.2023 and even the application for leading additional evidence has been dismissed vide order dated 27.04.2026; the petitioner has conveniently filed the present civil revision petition challenging not only the order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-7) whereby, the application for leading additional evidence was dismissed but also the order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) whereby his evidence was closed by Court order. 12. Evidently, the case is at the final stage of litigation and I see no cogent reason for reopening the case at the present stage; especially when the petitioner has been demonstratively negligent in leading its evidence by not presenting himself for cross-examination at the relevant stage of the trial. 13. At this stage, another ground put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his counsel before the learned Trial Court was negligent in pursuing the matter and on that account, he could not lead his evidence. ANKIT 2026.07.07 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR-4932-2026 (O&M) -8- 14. I have considered the aforesaid plea raised on behalf of petitioner, however suffice it to say that such a plea cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. A litigant is under a bounden duty to remain vigilant about proceedings initiated at his own instance and cannot be permitted to shift the entire blame upon the Advocate so as to overcome the consequences of his own inaction. After instituting proceedings, a party cannot be allowed to remain dormant and thereafter seek indulgence by attributing negligence solely to his/her counsel. The attempt to put entire responsibility upon the Advocate is apparently an afterthought and a device to avoid the legal consequences arising out of petitioner’s own persistent default, in presenting himself for cross-examination; which cannot be countenanced in law. 15. No other argument has been raised. 16. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 17. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. (HARSH BUNGER) 02.07.2026 JUDGE Ankit Khator Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ANKIT 2026.07.07 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh