Plaintiff in an injunction suit over a tubewell electricity connection challenged closure of his remaining evidence by court order despite extended last opportunity. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the order, and directed one effective opportunity for concluding evidence subject to Rs.30,000 costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No.3298 of 2026 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
128
Civil Revision No.3298 of 2026 (O & M) Date of decision :-20.04.2026
Ramesh
…..Petitioner
Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others
…..Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advoca t e for the petitioner.
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present revisio n petition is for setting aside the impu g ned order dated 16.3.2026 ( A nnexure P-5) passed by the learned A dditional Civil Judge (Sr. D ivn.), Siwani, whereby the remainin g evidence of the plaintiff a n d evidence qua his crossexaminat i on has been closed by Court or d er.
On 16.3.2026 the following i mpugned order was passed by the le a rned Additional Civil Judge (Sr . Divn.), Siwani :-
“Today the ca s e came up for evidence of plaintiff as well as pa y ment of cost of Rs. 1,000/to opposite party. Co s t not paid. No evidence of plaintiff is presen t despite extended last opportunity. Adjour n ment sought. Heard &
VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.24 18.01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Civil Revision No.3298 of 2026 (O & M) 2
perused the records. Perusals of case records shows affording of th i rteen effective opportunity to the plaintiff to co n clude evidence but despite of that failed to do so. No reasonable cause/reason advan c ed for non presence of evidence as well as f or adjournment despite of extended last op p ortunity. Under such circumstances, no f urther adjournment for plaintiff's evidence is justified. Hence, evidence of the plaintiff is clos e d by Court order. Now the case is adjourned to 1 3.04.2026 for evidence of defendants at own responsibility as well as making the payment o f cost by plaintiff. Till then, interim order to conti n ue.”
The brief facts of the case a r e that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent prohi b itory injunction seeking to restrain t h e defendants/respondents from interfering with the peaceful use of a n electricity connection installed at his tubewell (Meter Account No. B21KA533660) situated in Village Mohila, Tehsil Siwani, D istrict Bhiwani. It is asserted that the petitioner has been regularly paying all electricity dues and is lawfully using the connecti o n, with no outstanding liabilit y . The plaintiff also sought protectio n against illegal and forcible disconnection of the said connecti o n.
Upon notice, the defend a nts/respondents filed their written s t atement. Issues were framed b y the learned Trial Court on 06.05.20 2 4, and the case was fixed for pl a intiff’s evidence.
The matter thereafter unde r went multiple adjournments for recor d ing of evidence and argumen t s on the interim injunction
VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.24 18.01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Civil Revision No.3298 of 2026 (O & M) 3
applicati o n. On 05.08.2024, one witness ( PW Ramesh) was examined. The plai n tiff himself also appeared as P W1 and was duly examined and cros s -examined. However, despite several opportunities (some subject t o costs and the last being marked as a final opportunity), the remainin g evidence could not be conclu d ed, leading to the passing of the impu g ned order dated 16.03.2026.
Although multiple opport u nities were granted, the petitione r contends that sincere efforts were made to produce the remainin g witness(es), but the same c ould not be done due to circumst a nces beyond control.
Accordingly, the petitione r seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble C ourt for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 and gran t ing one effective opportunity t o lead remaining evidence, in the interest of justice.
At this stage, learned couns e l submits that the petitioner would su f fer irreparable loss if the impu g ned order dated 16.3.2026 (Annexu r e P-5) is not set aside. At the v ery outset, learned counsel submits t hat one effective opportunit y may be granted to the petitione r herein to conclude his evidenc e , as grave injustice will be caused to him if he is not permitted to do so.
After hearing learned couns e l for the petitioner, issuance of notice of motion is dispensed with a t this stage, as it will cause further d e lay in disposal of the case. Acc o rdingly, keeping in view the above fa c ts as canvassed by learned C o unsel for the petitioner, this petition i s allowed and impugned order dated 16.3.2026 (Annexure P-
VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.24 18.01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Civil Revision No.3298 of 2026 (O & M) 4
Disposed of as above.
Pending application(s), if an y , stands disposed of.
April 20, 2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE
Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No
VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.24 18.01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's order closing the plaintiff's evidence after thirteen opportunities should be set aside to allow one effective opportunity to conclude evidence?
Ramesh
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
