Allowed¶18

Hariya v. Urmila

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Apr 2026CR/3276/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hariya v. Urmila, CR-3276-2026, Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, 18.04.2026 (Deepak Gupta, J.) — evidence-closure order after 12 effective opportunities upheld as legal; one last opportunity granted to defendant to produce evidence in suit for possession by way of specific performance involving immovable-property rights; conditional on Rs.20,000/- demand-draft costs as condition precedent; production fixed for 07.05.2026; passed without notice to respondent.

What did the court decide?

One opportunity granted to the petitioner to conclude and produce his entire evidence at his own responsibility on the next trial Court date (07.05.2026), conditional on payment of Rs.20,000/- costs to the plaintiff–respondent by demand draft as a condition precedent; respondent at liberty to approach the Court since the order was passed without notice.

Hariya Vs Urmila — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P-6) closing the petitioner-defendant's evidence, after twelve effective opportunities, was illegal or perverse. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The impugned order closing the petitioner's evidence cannot be held to be illegal or perverse in any manner whatsoever, since as many as 12 effective opportunities were provided to him to lead evidence, which he failed to do.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of justice, and because valuable rights of the petitioner in immovable property are involved (suit for possession by way of specific performance), the trial Court is directed to provide one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude and produce his entire evidence at his own responsibility.

¶18

Key takeaways

The one additional opportunity is made subject to Rs.20,000/- as cost payable to the plaintiff–respondent by way of a demand draft, and payment of the said costs shall be the condition precedent for taking the evidence produced by the petitioner.ratio¶18
On the next date fixed before the trial Court (07.05.2026), the petitioner shall produce the demand draft for paying the costs to the respondent and, on the same date, shall also produce his entire evidence.ratio¶18
Since the order was passed without issuing any notice to the respondent, the respondent will be at liberty to approach the Court in case he feels aggrieved by the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Oral), decision 18.04.2026, Deepak Gupta, J. — CR-3276-2026 (Hariya v. Urmila): Revision against order dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P-6) of the trial Court closing the defendant-petitioner's evidence in Civil Suit CIS No.CS/1216-2016 ('Urmila vs. Hariya') before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, a suit by the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of specific performance. Holding the impugned order neither illegal nor perverse — 12 effective opportunities having already been given and unused — the Court nonetheless, in view of the valuable rights of the petitioner in immovable property, directed one final opportunity to conclude and produce his entire evidence at his own responsibility, subject to Rs.20,000/- costs payable to the plaintiff-respondent by demand draft, payment being a condition precedent; the demand draft and the entire evidence to be produced on the next trial-Court date of 07.05.2026. Order passed without notice to the respondent, who remains free to approach the Court if aggrieved.

¶1

CR-3276-2026

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR-3276-2026 Date of decision: 18.04.2026

Hariya

...Pe��oner

Versus

Smt. Urmila ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶11

¶12

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Pe��oner is the defendant before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat in Civil Suit bearing CIS No.CS/1216-2016 �tled ‘ Urmila vs. Hariya ’. He is aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure P-6), whereby his evidence has been closed by the Court.

¶14

Learned counsel submits that though adequate opportuni�es were granted by the trial Court, but valuable rights of the pe��oner in immovable property are involved as the suit was filed by the plain�ff – respondent for possession by way of specific performance. Learned counsel further submits that only defendant – pe��oner is to be examined apart from one more witness and that only one opportunity may be granted to produce this evidence.

¶15

Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that as many as 12 effec�ve opportuni�es were provided to the pe��oner to lead the evidence which he failed to do. Considering this circumstance, the impugned order cannot be held to be illegal or perverse in any manner whatsoever. However, it is also no�ced at the same �me that valuable rights of the pe��oner are involved in immovable property as the suit was filed by the plain�ff – respondent for possession by way of specific performance.

¶16

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.18 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-3276-2026 [2]

¶18

In the interest of jus�ce, the trial Court is directed to provide one opportunity to the pe��oner to conclude and produce his en�re evidence at his own responsibility, but subject to Rs.20,000/- as cost payable to the plain�ff – respondent by way of a demand dra�. Payment of the said costs shall be the condi�on precedent for taking the evidence to be produced by the pe��oner. It is informed by learned counsel that the next date of hearing before the trial Court is 07.05.2026. Therefore, it is directed that on the date fixed before the trial Court, the pe��oner shall produce the demand dra� for paying to the respondent and on the same date, he shall also produce his en�re evidence.

¶19

Since this order has been passed without issuing any no�ce to the respondent, therefore, the respondent will be at liberty to approach this Court, in case he feels aggrieved by the order.

¶20

18.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶21

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.18 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Hariya v. Urmila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariya v. Urmila

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

Darshna Vs Karambir

Desh Raj Vs Surinder

Balkar Singh Vs Surinder

Indra @ Indra Ranga Vs Bimlesh Tanwar and Ors.

Arun Gupta Vs Kanta Handa Since Deceased through Counsel Dr. Payel Mehta and Others

Santosh Devi Vs Satpal Singh and Others