[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Babita Jain vs Sudesh Kumari (Deceased) And on 31 January, 2026
Sr. No. 48
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM(M) No. 14/2026
CAV No. 68/2026
Babita Jain .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Abhishek Wazir, Advocate
V/s
Sudesh Kumari (Deceased) and .....Respondent(s)
others
Through:- Mr. Jyoti Saroop, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
31.01.2026
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition
is taken up for final disposal at the very threshold, without
commenting upon the merits of the case.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that
vide order dated 17.12.2025, the learned trial court closed the evidence
of defendant No. 1 and adjourned the matter to 02.01.2026. When the
case was listed on 02.01.2026, the petitioner, being defendant No. 2 in
the said suit, produced two witnesses in terms of the aforesaid order,
whose evidence by way of affidavits had already been filed before the
learned trial court. However, the learned trial court, instead of getting
the said two witnesses cross-examined, closed the right of the
petitioner to produce evidence, despite the fact that the witnesses were
present before the court. According to learned counsel, there was no
occasion for the trial court to close the evidence when the witnesses of
the petitioner were present. Thus, the trial court committed an illegality
by not recording the statements of the said witnesses, and the
impugned order is liable to be quashed.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that while passing the order dated
17.12.2025, the trial court had closed the right of defendant No. 1, and
therefore the petitioner was well within her rights to produce her
witnesses on the next date of hearing, i.e. 02.01.2026. However,
instead of recording the statements of the witnesses, the learned trial
court passed the impugned order closing the right of the petitioner,
which is an error apparent on the face of the record.
4. Mr. Abhishek Wazir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew
the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 02.01.2026,
wherein, the learned trial court observed that due to a typographical
mistake and inadvertent error in the earlier order, defendant No. 1 was
mentioned instead of defendant No. 2, and the same was rectified by
virtue of the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that he was
not aware of the closure of the right to lead evidence, as the same
could not be gathered from a bare perusal of the order dated
17.12.2025, and in compliance with the said order, the petitioner
produced her witnesses on the next date of hearing. Their cross-
examination was not recorded and instead the impugned order was
passed, which, according to him, is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
5. At the contrary, Mr. Jyoti Saroop, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the caveator submits that since there was an inadvertent mistake and
typographical error while passing the order dated 17.12.2025, the same
was rectified by the order dated 02.01.2026, which is the subject
matter of the instant petition. By virtue of the said order, it was
clarified that the right to produce evidence of defendant No. 2 stood
closed and not that of defendant No. 1, and that the order dated
02.01.2026 was to be read in continuation of the earlier order dated
17.12.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the caveator further submits that although
defendant No. 2 produced two witnesses, namely Adarsh Jain and
Deepak Gupta, their cross-examination could not be conducted as the
right of defendant No. 2 to lead evidence had already been closed.
Consequently, the matter was rightly directed to be listed for final
arguments on 04.02.2026. According to learned counsel, no fault can
be attributed to the learned trial court, and the challenge raised by the
petitioner is ill-founded.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
The caveat stands discharged.
8. Without commenting upon the merits of the controversy, and keeping
in view that the petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, learned counsel for both the parties submitted
that they have no objection if the matter is remanded back to the
learned trial court to allow defendant No. 2 to produce evidence and to
get the two witnesses cross-examined within the shortest possible time.
Learned counsel for the caveator fairly submits that he has no
objection if the petitioner/defendant No. 2 produces the witnesses on
the next date of hearing fixed for final arguments i.e. 04.02.2026.
9. In light of the statement made by learned counsel for the caveator and
the consent of both the parties, and with a view to do complete justice
to both the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned
trial court to allow the petitioner/defendant No. 2 to produce two
witnesses, namely Adarsh Jain and Deepak Gupta, on 04.02.2026, so
that they may be cross-examined. Subject to the production of the
witnesses on the said date, the trial court shall proceed thereafter in
accordance with law. The above direction is passed keeping in view
the fact that a considerable time has already been passed in this matter
before the learned trial court and no final decision has been taken so
far, which have caused grave prejudice to both the parties.
10.Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, any further pendency of the instant
matter before this Court will further aggravate the adjudication of the
rights of the parties, therefore, this Court deemed it appropriate to
decide the instant matter at its threshold with the consent of both the
parties.
11.As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 02.01.2026, which
is the subject matter of the instant petition, is set aside. The writ
petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above with the consent
of both the parties, and the learned trial court is directed to proceed
expeditiously in the matter, in accordance with law.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
31.01.2026
Vishal Khajuria
