Sandeep Sharma and Another Vs Sita Devi

Th e present civil revision petition has been filed by Sandeep Sha r ma and Neeraj Sha r ma, defendants in Civil Suit N o . 19 of 2022 titled Sita Devi ve r sus Sandeep Sharm a and another, against Sita Devi , plaintiff therein. 2. Th e petitioners have invoked the s u pervisory jurisdiction of this C o urt under Article 2 27 of the Constitution of I n dia, challenging the order d a ted 26.11.2025 pas s ed by the learned Civil Judg e (Junior Division), Kalka, Dis t rict Panchkula, wh e reby the application moved by the defendants under Section 151 CPC seeking p e rmission to examine additiona l evidence after closure of defence evidence was d i smissed. 3. Br i efly stated, the evidence of de fe ndants in the suit was closed b y a specific court order dated 27.03.2025 after availing more than ten effec t ive opportunities. T he said order closing the ev i dence was never assailed by the defendants by w ay of any appropriate proce e dings. Thereafter, the defend a nts moved an appli c ation under Section 151 CPC s eeking permission to examine t wo additional witnesses, namely the previous o w ner of the land and the village Lambardar, co n tending that their examination w as necessary for just adjudica t ion

¶15

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CR-9391-2025 (O&M)

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

of the case. Th e said application was opposed b y the plaintiff on the ground th a t it was a belated a t tempt to reopen the defence evi d ence and to delay the proceedi n gs. 4. Th e learned Trial Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, dismissed the application by recordi n g a categorical finding that the defendants had availed sufficient opportunities, that no explanation whatso e ver was furnished as to why the proposed witnesse s could not be examined earlier, a nd that no new or subsequent circumstance had a r isen warranting recall of the o r der closing the de f ence evidence. It was further held that the application was an afterthought int e nded to delay the proceedings a nd was not maintainable. 5. Le a rned counsel for the petitione r s has contended before this C o urt that the Trial C ourt adopted a hyper-technical approach and failed to apprec i ate that no prejudi c e would be caused to the plain t iff if the additional witnesses w ere examined, as s h e would have an opportunity t o cross-examine them. Reliance has been placed up o n the judgment of the Hon’bl e Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275 to c o ntend that procedural law sh o uld advance the ca u se of justice.

¶19

Si n ce short controversy is involve d in the present petition, no notice is required to be i s sued to the respondent.

¶20

Th i s Court has considered the submissions and has caref u lly examined the i m pugned order as well as the record. The scope of interference under Article 2 2 7 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. This Court d oes not sit in appea l over discretionary orders pass e d by lower courts and interference is warranted only where there is patent perver s ity, jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of j u stice.

¶21

In t he present case, it is an admitte d position that the defence evidence TRIPTI SAINIwas closed by a judicial order after granting more than adequate opportunities. T he 2026.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

CR-9391-2025 (O&M)

¶24

petitioners neit h er challenged that order nor s ought its recall by disclosing a ny legally sustain a ble reason. The application f or additional evidence does not disclose any new fact, subsequent developme n t or circumstance which could not have been anti c ipated during the defence evid e nce. The proposed witnesses w ere neither newly d iscovered nor shown to be un a vailable earlier. The plea of “ j ust adjudication” c annot be used as a tool to reopen proceedings indefinit e ly, particularly wh e n the party seeking indulgence h as been grossly negligent.

¶25

Th e reliance placed upon K.K. Velusamy’s case (supra) is wh o lly misplaced. Th e said judgment itself caution s that inherent powers cannot be exercised to re o pen evidence as a matter of rou t ine or to undo the consequence s of deliberate inac t ion or negligence. Discretion under Section 151 CPC is to be exercised spari n gly and only in exceptional c ircumstances, none of which are present in the c a se at hand.

¶26

Th e learned Trial Court has exerc i sed its discretion judiciously, a fter considering the stage of the trial, conduct of the defendants, and the absence of a ny plausible expla n ation for the delay. No pervers i ty, illegality or failure of justice is discernible in t h e impugned order. Allowing s u ch applications at this stage w o uld defeat procedur a l discipline and frustrate timel y adjudication.

¶27

Co n sequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the o r der dated 26.11.20 2 5 passed by the learned Civil J u dge (Junior Division), Kalka. T he present civil re v ision petition is dismissed, bein g devoid of merit. 12. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

January 12, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶29

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sandeep Sharma and Another v. Sita Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sharma and Another v. Sita Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sham Lal Vs Shiv Parshad

Municipality Bathinda Vs Dwarka Dass Mittal

Raghbir Singh and Others Vs Lalit and Others

Gursahib Singh Vs Maan Singh (Since Deceased) Thr His Lrs and Ors.

Dharampal Mehmi Vs Sushma Rani

Shalu Gupta Vs Falak Saini and Another