Mahesh Goyal and Anr. v. Pritam Kaur Th Lrs

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2026CR/1267/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision, Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 14.05.2026 — closure of plaintiffs' evidence by trial court modified; one effective opportunity granted to plaintiffs to lead entire evidence despite due-diligence lapse; defendants' evidence completed during pendency of revision; act of Court should not prejudice rights of parties; conditional revival of closure order if opportunity not availed; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of with modification of the impugned order: plaintiffs allowed one effective opportunity to lead their entire evidence; failing which the impugned order shall come in vogue and no further opportunity will be granted. All pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. ¶¶17

Mahesh Goyal and Anr. Vs Pritam Kaur Th Lrs — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order closing the plaintiffs' evidence should be modified to permit the plaintiffs one effective opportunity to lead their entire evidence.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Though the plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing the suit, in the interest of justice the impugned order is modified to the extent that the plaintiffs are allowed one effective opportunity to lead their entire evidence.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

The objection that the defendants had already adduced their entire evidence cannot be accepted, because the defendants led their evidence during the time the revision petition was pending before this Court.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The act of Court should not prejudice rights of the parties.ratio¶¶16
If the plaintiffs fail to lead evidence despite availing the opportunity granted, the impugned order shall come in vogue and no further opportunity will be granted to the plaintiffs.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Pankaj Jain, J., oral), CR-1267-2016 (O&M), decided 14.05.2026 — Civil revision by Mahesh Goel and another against order dated 16.10.2015 of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, closing the evidence of the plaintiffs in a suit against Pritam Kaur (since deceased) through LRs. Held: although the plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing the suit, in the interest of justice the impugned order was modified to allow the plaintiffs one effective opportunity to lead their entire evidence; the objection that the defendants had already adduced their entire evidence was rejected because the defendants led their evidence while the revision petition was pending, the act of Court not being permitted to prejudice the rights of the parties; if the plaintiffs fail to avail the opportunity, the impugned order shall come in vogue and no further opportunity will be granted. Petition disposed of accordingly; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

203-I CR-1267-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision:-14.05.2026

¶3

Mahesh Goel and another … Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

Pritam Kaur (since deceased) through LRs ... Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶7

Present:Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate, ( through video conferencing ) with Mr. Gurjit Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms. Mallika Passi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

¶9

¶10

PANKAJ JAIN, J . (Oral)

¶11

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby evidence of the plaintiffs was ordered to be closed.

¶12

Though from the impugned order it is evident that the plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing the suit. However, in the interest of justice, this Court finds that the impugned order needs to be modified to the extent that the plaintiffs are allowed one effective opportunity to lead their entire evidence.

¶13

Mr. Gupta though raises objection that by now the defendants have adduced their entire evidence and the same has been ordered to be closed, but this

¶14

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.05.21 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶15

CR-1267-2016 (O&M) ( 2 )

¶16

Court finds that the objection raised by Mr. Gupta cannot be accepted as the defendants led their evidence during the time the present revision petition was pending before this Court. The act of Court should not prejudice rights of the parties.

¶17

In view of above, present revision petition is disposed off with the aforesaid modification in the impugned order.

¶18

All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.

¶19

It is made clear that in case the plaintiffs fail to lead evidence despite availing opportunity as granted hereinabove, the impugned order shall come in vogue and no further opportunity will be granted to the plaintiffs.

¶20

14.05.2026 ( PANKAJ JAIN ) Pankaj JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶21

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.05.21 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Mahesh Goyal and Anr. v. Pritam Kaur Th Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Goyal and Anr. v. Pritam Kaur Th Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajaib Singh Vs Bhupinder Singh

Surinder Pal Bansal and Others Vs Anurag Aggarwal and Others

Mohinder Singh Vs Gurcharan Singh and Ors.

Mannu Rani Vs Vini Mahajan and Anr.

Kiran and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahesh Goel and Another Vs Pritam Kaur Dead through Lrs