[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varinder Pal Singh Virk vs Vikas Traders on 20 January, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-36-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.01.2026
Varinder Pal Singh Virk ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
M/s Vikas Traders ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 17.11.2025
(Annexure P-1) passed by the Commercial Court at Ambala whereby the
application for leading additional evidence filed by the plaintiff-petitioner has
been dismissed.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction for directing the defendant-
respondent not to divert the payments from Housing Board Haryana to their
bank account and for mandatory injunction to act as per the agreement dated
08.01.2015 and return the amount already received by the defendant-
respondent i.e. ₹12 Lakhs, ₹21,62,000/-, ₹40 Lakhs as partial payment of final
bill released to defendant-respondent and not to handover the cheque as and
when received regarding ₹36,58,000/-. The suit was also filed for recovery of
₹1,44,06,000/-. The case set up by the plaintiff-petitioner was that the
authenticity of this order/judgment.
defendant-respondent through its Proprietor had been awarded a contract for
construction of 417 EWS triple storey flats of BPL Categories including
Public Health Services, Internal Electrical Installation, Sector 29, West City,
Kaithal by Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Haryana, Panchkula. The
defendant-respondent entered into an agreement dated 08.01.2015 with the
plaintiff-petitioner dated for completion of the contract on the terms and
conditions mentioned therein. The plaintiff-petitioner was also appointed as
an attorney vide SPA dated 08.01.2015. It was further the case set up that as
per the agreement, all the amounts spent on the construction would be borne
by the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent would have a right to
the extent of 2% commission only. It was further the case set up that payment
towards the bills/final bills shall be transfered to the account of the defendant-
respondent in United Bank of India, Branch Kaithal and this account was to
remain operational till the final payment of RA Bills/final bills and security
deposit to be released by the Housing Board, Haryana and further that the SPA
would also remain in force till the final realization of the bills. It was further
the case set up in the plaint that the SPA was cancelled and operation of
account at Kaithal was also cancelled, the defendant-respondent had given
instructions to the Housing Board, Haryana to divert all the payments of
Kaithal Project (RA) to his Narwana Bank Account. The plaintiff-petitioner
led his evidence after availing about 20 opportunities before the suit was
converted into a commercial suit and 03 opportunities thereafter i.e. after the
conversion of the suit into commercial suit. One Ashwani, Clerk from the
office of Housing Board, Haryana, was examined as PW3 earlier and after the
plaintiff-petitioner's evidence had been closed, an application was moved for
additional evidence to summon the Clerk from the office of Housing Board,
authenticity of this order/judgment.
Haryana, Panchkula alongwith the running bills statement for the work of 417
EWS Flats for BPL families at Kaithal. Reply was filed to the said application.
The application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 17.11.2025
(Annexure P-1). Hence, the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that
the running bills statement could not be produced despite due diligence as this
record was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner at the time of
his evidence and he came to know about the existence of this record when he
obtained the same from the Accounts Branch of Housing Board, Haryana,
Panchkula.
4. Heard.
5. In the present case, the suit is a commercial suit in which the
plaintiff-petitioner had already availed numerous opportunities to lead his
evidence. Earlier Ashwani, Clerk from the office of Housing Board, Haryana,
Panchkula, had been summoned and was examined as PW3. The argument of
the learned counsel that the running bills statement was not to his knowledge
cannot be accepted as Work Order-cum-Sub Contract Agreement between the
plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent which has been handed over
in Court today itself reveals that the construction material like cement and
steel will be supplied by the Housing Board, Haryana, Panchkula and to be
recovered from RA bills/final bills as per actual consumption and, hence, it
cannot be said that it was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner
that the RA bills/final bills are to be prepared by the Housing Board, Haryana,
Panchkula.
6. In view of the above and especially keeping in view the fact that
the present is a commercial suit, I do not find any merit in the present revision
authenticity of this order/judgment.
petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed off.
7. It is made clear that any observation made herein shall not be
treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
20.01.2026 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
authenticity of this order/judgment.
