[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Sharma And Another vs Sita Devi on 12 January, 2026
CR-9391-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
CR
CR-9391-2025 (O&M)
Decided on ::- 12.01.2026
Sandeep Sharma and Another ....Petitioners
VERSUS
Sita Devi ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS.
M JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:
Mr. Neeraj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner
petitioner.
(through Video Conferening)
-.-
MANDEEP PANNU J.
1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by Sandeep Sharma
and Neeraj Sharma, defendants in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2022 titled Sita Devi versus
Sandeep Sharma and another, against Sita Devi, plaintiff therein.
2. The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution
Constitution of India, challenging the order dated
26.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalka, District
Panchkula, whereby the application moved by the defendants under Section 151
CPC seeking permission to examine additional evidence after closure of defence
evidence was dismissed.
3. Briefly stated, the evidence of defendants in the suit was closed by a
specific court order dated 27.03.2025 after availing more than ten effective
opportunities. The said order closing the evidence was never assailed by the
defendants by way of any appropriate proceedings. Thereafter, the defendants
moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to examine two
additional witnesses, namely the previous owner of the land and the village
Lambardar,
ardar, contending that their examination was necessary for just adjudication
CR-9391-2025 (O&M) -2-
of the case. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that it
was a belated attempt to reopen the defence evidence and to delay the proceedings.
4. The learned
learned Trial Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the
record, dismissed the application by recording a categorical finding that the
defendants had availed sufficient opportunities, that no explanation whatsoever
was furnished as to why the proposed witnesses
witnesses could not be examined earlier, and
that no new or subsequent circumstance had arisen warranting recall of the order
closing the defence evidence. It was further held that the application was an
afterthought intended to delay the proceedings and wa
was not maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before this Court
that the Trial Court adopted a hyper-technical
hyper technical approach and failed to appreciate
that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the additional witnesses were
examined, as she would have an opportunity to cross
cross-examine
examine them. Reliance has
been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy
vs. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275 to contend that procedural law should
advance the cause of justice.
justi
6. Since short controversy is involved in the present petition, no notice is
required to be issued to the respondent.
7. This Court has considered the submissions and has carefully
examined the impugned order as well as the record. The scope of interference
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. This Court does
not sit in appeal over discretionary
discretionary orders passed by lower courts and interference
is warranted only where there is patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest
miscarriage of justice.
8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the defence evidence
was closed by a judicial
TRIPTI SAINI judicial order after granting more than adequate opportunities. The
CR-9391-2025 (O&M) -3-
petitioners neither challenged that order nor sought its recall by disclosing any
legally sustainable reason. The application for additional evidence does not
disclose any new fact, subsequent
subsequent development or circumstance which could not
have been anticipated during the defence evidence. The proposed witnesses were
neither newly discovered nor shown to be unavailable earlier. The plea of "just
adjudication" cannot be used as a tool to reopen pr
proceedings
oceedings indefinitely,
particularly when the party seeking indulgence has been grossly negligent.
9. The reliance placed upon K.K. Velusamy
Velusamy's case (supra) is wholly
misplaced. The said judgment itself cautions that inherent powers cannot be
exercised to reopen evidence as a matter of routine or to undo the consequences of
deliberate inaction or negligence. Discretion under Section 151 CPC is to be
exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, none of which are
present in the case at hand.
10. The learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously, after
considering the stage of the trial, conduct of the defendants, and the absence of any
plausible explanation for the delay. No perversity, illegality or failure of justice is
discernible
ble in the impugned order. Allowing such applications at this stage would
defeat procedural discipline and frustrate timely adjudication.
11. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order
dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalka. The
present civil revision petition is dismissed, being devoid of merit.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
January 12, 2026
202 ((MANDEEP PANNU)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
