Rajinder Kaur and Another Vs Dharam Pal and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rajinder Kaur and Another Vs Dharam Pal and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order set aside; plaintiffs granted one opportunity to present PW-2 Angad Makkar for cross-examination subject to Rs.50,000/- costs payable to the contesting defendants (to be received by respondent No.3 on behalf of defendants No.1 to 5); defendants thereafter to have one opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs could be denied an effective opportunity to complete the cross-examination of PW-2 Angad Makkar after closure of plaintiffs' evidence, such that the trial court's order dated 12.09.2025 called for interference in revision.

Court's answer

In the interest of justice, the plaintiffs are to be granted one opportunity to present PW-2 for his cross-examination, subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- as costs to the contesting defendants.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.3, present in person and conducting the litigation on behalf of the defendants, shall be entitled to receive the costs on behalf of defendants No.1 to 5.

Key takeaways

Thereafter, the defendants would be granted one opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence, if any.ratio¶6
The impugned order dated 12.09.2025 is set aside and, with the aforesaid directions, the revision petition is disposed of; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Pankaj Jain, J., oral) disposed of a civil revision against the order dated 12.09.2025 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi, by which the plaintiffs' application for an effective opportunity to complete the cross-examination of PW-2 Angad Makkar had been declined. According to the petitioners, PW-2 was partly cross-examined on 27.01.2020 with further dates of 05.02.2020 and 05.03.2020, but the Courts closed in March 2020 on account of COVID-19 and the pendency of the cross-examination escaped the plaintiffs' counsel's attention; plaintiffs' evidence was closed on 07.07.2022. Holding that one further opportunity would subserve the interest of justice, the Court set aside the impugned order and permitted the plaintiffs to present PW-2 for cross-examination subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- costs to the contesting defendants, receivable by respondent No.3 conducting the litigation on behalf of defendants No.1 to 5; the defendants were thereafter to be allowed one opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence, if any. Pending miscellaneous applications also stood disposed of.

CR-8713-2025 (O&M)

170 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-8713-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.05.2026

Rajinder Kaur & anr.

...... Petitioners

Versus

Dharam Pal & ors. ..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present :- Ms. Avin Sandhu, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Arjun Shukla, Advocate Mr. Charanjiv Singh Rana, Advocate for the respondents.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 I nstant revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi (Annexure P-I) whereby application filed by the plaintiffs seeking an effective opportunity to complete the cross-examination of PW-2 Angad Makkar has been declined. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit, i.e. the petitioners as plaintiffs and the respondents as defendants.

2 As per petitioners, plaintiff No.2 Angad Makkar appeared as PW2. He was partly cross-examined on 27.01.2020. His cross-examination was deferred to 05.02.2020 and thereafter to 05.03.2020. In March 2020 the

Page 1 of 3

POOJA SHARMA 2026.05.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-8713-2025 (O&M)

Courts were closed on account of COVID-19. The fact with respect to pendency of the cross-examination of Angad Makkar escaped the attention of the counsel for the plaintiffs. Evidence of plaintiffs was closed on 07.07.2022. The plaintiff filed application seeking opportunity for cross examination of PW2 Angad Makkar.

3 The application stands dismissed by the Trial Court observing that the suit is of the year 2015. Plaintiffs have availed numerous opportunities. The case remained pending for rebuttal evidence for three years, yet the present application was moved at the fag end of the trial.

4 Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the mistake on behalf of the plaintiffs is a bonafide owing to closure of the Courts in between on account of COVID-19. PW-2 undertakes to remain present for crossexamination on the next date of hearing i.e. 25.05.2026 and prays that an effective opportunity be granted.

5 Per contra counsel for the defendants would submit that the conduct of the plaintiffs is evident from the record. The intent is only to delay the trial.

6 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through records of the case, this Court finds that it would be the interest of justice that the plaintiffs are granted one opportunity to present PW-2 for his cross-examination subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- costs to be paid to the contesting defendants. Respondent No. 3, who is stated to be present in person and conducting the litigation on behalf of the defendants, shall be entitled to receive the costs on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 5. Thereafter defendants would be granted one opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence, if any.

Page 2 of 3

POOJA SHARMA 2026.05.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-8713-2025 (O&M)

7 The impugned order is accordingly set aside. With the aforesaid

direction, the present revision petition is disposed off.

8 Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed off.

( PANKAJ JAIN ) 21.05.2026 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

POOJA SHARMA 2026.05.22 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Page 3 of 3