Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20593 = 2025:PHHC:158614
Decided on: 17.11.2025
Present:
Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Constitution of India, Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 17 Rule 3 -- Closing of evidence by Court order – Setting aside of -- Evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court order was not in any way illegal or suffers from any material illegality or irregularity -- Considering the pace at which the learned Civil Judge is proceeding and the fact that even after closing the evidence of the petitioner, respondent/plaintiff has been granted 07 opportunities for rebuttal evidence -- Interest of justice requires, one opportunity to be granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence at his own responsibility -- Petitioner allowed one effective opportunity subject to the payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-.
(Para 3-5)
***
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 15.09.2025, vide which, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar has closed the evidence of the petitioner/defendant by order and the order dated 01.10.2025, vide which, the application for leading additional evidence by examining two witnesses has been declined. Petitioner submitted that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was pending for evidence of the petitioner. The case was fixed first time for evidence of the petitioner on 07.05.2024 and up to 15.09.2025, 06 opportunities were granted to the petitioner. On that day, petitioner/defendant appeared as DW1 despite his bad health and examined himself but request for further adjournment was declined and evidence was closed. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned to rebuttal evidence and 07 opportunities has already been granted for rebuttal evidence. Petitioner moved an application for additional evidence and the same was also declined by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 01.10.2025. In the instant petition, both the orders has been assailed. The order, vide which the evidence of the petitioner was closed is being assailed on the ground that petitioner was granted only 06 opportunities, whereas numerous opportunities were granted to the respondent/plaintiff and that even after closing the evidence of the petitioner, learned Civil Judge has granted 07 opportunities for leading rebuttal evidence to the respondent/plaintiff and that the case of the respondent/plaintiff was pending for five years for leading evidence in affirmative. He assails the order, vide which, his application for additional evidence has been declined on the grounds that the application has been declined without any application of mind by the learned Civil Judge as in the impugned order, it has been recorded that the details of the proposed witnesses, which are sought to be examined by way of the present application has not been furnished and that how the Court can decide that evidence is relevant or not and was not within the knowledge of the applicant even after the exercise of the due diligence. He pointed out that along with the application, he has filed a list of witnesses detailing the witnesses as Kuldeep son of Rajbir, R/o Village Kundal, District Jhajjar, Krishan son of Surje, R/o Village Kundal, District Jhajjar, so the details of the witnesses were disclosed in the list of witnesses submitted along with the application for additional evidence.
2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner at length.
3. Considering the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and after going through paper book, it cannot be concluded that the impugned order, whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court was in any way illegal or suffers from any material illegality or irregularity and it is a fact that petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities to lead evidence but considering the fact that the pace at which the learned Civil Judge is proceeding and the fact that even after closing the evidence of the petitioner, respondent/plaintiff has been granted 07 opportunities for rebuttal evidence.
4. In such circumstances, interest of justice requires that at list one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence at his own responsibility and the respondent/plaintiff can be compensated for delay in disposal of the case by awarding of cost.
5. In view of this, the instant petition is disposed of with the directions to the learned Civil Judge to allow the petitioner one effective opportunity to conclude his evidence by examining two remaining witnesses at his own responsibility subject to the payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-. Out of the said cost, Rs.20,000/- be deposited in the fund maintained by District Legal Services Authority, Jhajjar and the remaining amount be paid to the respondent/plaintiff.
6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Order accordingly.
********