166 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4317-2026 Date of Decision:- 21.07.2026 KISHORE SAREEN ....Petitioner Vs. VIJAY KUMARI AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate and Mr. Arshit Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner/defendant No.4 filed instant civil revision for setting aside impugned order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar in Civil Suit No.55274 of 2013 titled as ‘Vijay Kumari Vs. Varinder Sareen and Others’ whereby the objection raised by counsel for respondent No.1 – plaintiff was wrongly allowed during the cross-examination of Amit Chopra (PW8). 2. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.4 argued that plaintiff filed suit for partition by metes and bounds claiming 1/4th share in Bhagat Building bearing B-II-2481, G.T. Road, Jalandhar along with relief of permanent injunction as detailed therein. Copy of plaint is Annexure P-1 and copy of written statement filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 is Annexure P-2. Replication filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of petitioner/defendant No.4 is Annexure P-3. During the course of evidence, SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4317-2026 -2- cross-examination of Amit Chopra (PW8) was going on when the question put to this witness was declined. The relevant portion of cross-examination dated 02.03.2026 is Annexure P-6. The objection raised by learned counsel representing petitioner/defendant No.4 was disposed of by passing impugned order dated 17.04.2026. It is pointed out that Amit Chopra (PW8) was being cross-examined with regards to the sale deed dated 21.10.1994. The witness was fully aware of the said sale deed and for that reason he was being cross- examined on this point. There was no valid reason to restrict the cross- examination of this witness conducted by learned counsel representing the petitioner/defendant No.4. For final adjudication of the case, cross- examination of Amit Chopra (PW8) is necessary. It is submitted that impugned order dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-7) may kindly be set aside by accepting the present civil revision and counsel may be permitted to further cross-examine the witness Amit Chopra (PW8). 3. Facts relating to present case are clear from the documents annexed with the petition. No purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondents. Therefore, service of respondents is dispensed with. 4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record. Admittedly, it is a civil suit for partition of property by metes and bounds along with the relief of permanent injunction in which plaintiff’s evidence is going on. The main dispute is raised with regards to the cross- examination of Amit Chopra (PW8) who was being cross-examined with regards to the sale deed dated 21.10.1994. The said question put to the witness Amit Chopra was objected to and on that account the cross- SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4317-2026 -3- examination was deferred. The cross-examination of Amit Chopra (PW8) dated 02.03.2026 is Annexure P-6. Learned counsel representing petitioner/defendant No.4 conceded that Amit Chopra (PW8) is not related in any manner in the execution of sale deed dated 21.10.1994. He is neither signatory nor one of the marginal witness to the said sale deed. Once it has come on record that Amit Chopra (PW8) was not associated in the execution of aforesaid sale deed, cross examination of this witness on this point was rightly objected to. It is for the petitioner/defendant No.4 to prove the said sale deed by leading evidence at the relevant time. Said witness Amit Chopra (PW8) was cross-examined in part on 02.02.2026. He was further cross- examined on 02.03.2026 and thereafter the objections raised by learned counsel representing petitioner/defendant No.4 were disposed of vide impugned order dated 17.04.2026 and the case was adjourned for 30.04.2026. 5. Considering the aforesaid factual position, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 does not warrant any interference by this Court, accordingly present civil revision preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.4 is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to trial Court. 6. Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 21.07.2026 snd Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document