Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh And Another vs Sanjeev Kumar on 2 December, 2025
Page 1 of 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
137
CR-8854-2025(O&M)
Date of decision: 02.12.2025
Nirmal Singh & Another
...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Sanjeev Kumar
...Respondent(s)
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate
Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate
Mr. Ojas Bansal, Advocate
Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioners (through VC).
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking setting aside of the order dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby application moved by the petitioners under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC to summon additional witnesses, has been dismissed.
2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court has taken a hyper-technical view of the matter. No doubt, the petitioners/plaintiffs had failed to examine the said witnesses during evidence, however, the said omission was unintentional.
1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2025 03:45:31 ::: Page 2 of 6 It is submitted that the entire case of the petitioners lies upon the deposition of the witnesses sought to be examined. As such, the learned trial Court ought to have adopted a liberal view in the interest of justice.
3. Learned counsel further submits that it is only when the defendant had concluded his evidence that the necessity arose for the petitioners to lead this additional evidence. It is submitted that in fact, the evidence sought to be led by the petitioners would be evidence in rebuttal. It is submitted that what the petitioners seek to show by examining the said witnesses is that when the executant Amar Nath executed the Will dated 04.07.2019 (Ex.P5), he was suffering from dementia for which he also remained admitted in PGIMER, Chandigarh. The petitioners only seek to examine the doctors who treated Amar Nath for dementia from PGI. The said evidence can be conducted through VC hearing as well. Thus, no delay will be caused in the matter, and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/defendant. Learned counsel further submits that he had closed his evidence in the affirmative vide order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P7) and therefore, there can be no bar to the petitioners leading additional evidence. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside. Learned counsel further relies upon judgment of this Court in Sarvesh Kumar v. M/s Cocoon Overseas India Ltd., (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2750179, wherein it is held that:-
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2025 03:45:32 ::: Page 3 of 6 "Plaintiff is entitled to lead rebuttal evidence when the issue's onus is on the defendant, and such evidence can be treated as additional evidence for proper adjudication of the suit."
4. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/petitioners had filed the instant Suit on 14.02.2022 (Annexure P2) for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of Will dated 29.10.2014 executed by Amarnath in their favour. The petitioners are the nephews of Amarnath. The defendant had filed written statement dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure P3) controverting the claim of the petitioners and pleading that the Will dated 29.10.2014 relied upon by the petitioners stood superseded by Will dated 04.07.2019 (Annexure P5) executed by Amar Nath in favour of the defendant. A perusal of the written statement (Annexure P3) shows that in Para 1 of the Preliminary Objections, the respondent/defendant had clearly pleaded that the Will dated 29.10.2014 was not "executed by Amar Nath of his free will but got executed by playing fraud. Moreover, the said alleged Will stood cancelled by Amar Nath by registered will dated 4.7.2019 executed by him in favour of the defendant who used to look after and maintain him and his wife Smt Rekha Rani. Amar Nath clearly mentioned in the registered will dated 4.7.2019 that the alleged Will dated 29.10.2014 is forged and got executed by playing fraud and giving false promises and he cancels the same."
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2025 03:45:32 ::: Page 4 of 6
6. The plaintiffs had filed no replication to the above written statement of the respondent. Thereafter, petitioners had closed their evidence on dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P7). The defendant had also closed his evidence on 08.04.2025 (Annexure P8). The present application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC was filed thereafter on 05.05.2025 (Annexure P9); to which reply dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P10) was filed by the respondent/defendant. Said application has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure P1). Clearly, therefore, application of the petitioners (Annexure P9), was highly belated.
7. Further, perusal of the plaint (Annexure P2) shows that the plaintiffs have themselves pleaded therein that Amar Nath was mentally disturbed and had been suffering from dementia. Thus, the plaintiffs at this belated stage cannot seek to fill up lacuna in their case by seeking to summon additional witnesses to prove their case. I am in agreement with the observations of the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs ought to have proved factum of the alleged dementia of Amarnath during their affirmative evidence. Relevant reasoning of the learned trial Court is in Para 4 of the impugned order dated 15.11.2025, which reads as follows:-
"4. After considering the submissions of both parties, this Court finds no merit in the present application. The plaintiff has already pleaded in the plaint that late Amar Nath was allegedly suffering from dementia and had filed certain treatment records along with the plaint. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2025 03:45:32 ::: Page 5 of 6 prove these facts during his affirmative evidence, which opportunity the plaintiff has already availed. The plaintiff cannot now be permitted to fill up the lacuna in his case by seeking to summon additional witnesses at this belated stage. The defendant has already denied the allegations regarding dementia and treatment at PGIMER in the written statement, and the plaintiff was fully aware of this denial at the outset of the trial. The plaintiff has not shown any sufficient cause or reason explaining why the said witnesses could not be summoned or examined at the stage of plaintiff's evidence. Allowing such an application at this stage would amount to permitting the plaintiff to reopen his evidence and prolong the proceedings unnecessarily. The Court finds that the application has been moved only to delay the trial and is not maintainable in the present form. Accordingly, the application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC stands dismissed and disposed of."
8. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable on facts and law.
9. On the contrary, reliance may be placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malayalam Plantations Ltd. v. State of Kerala (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 247254, D/D 09.11.2010, wherein it is held that:-
"B. Civil Procedure Code, Order 41, Rule 27 - Additional evidence - Under Order 41, Rule 27, additional evidence could be adduced in one of the three situations, namely, (a) whether the trial Court has illegally refused the evidence although it ought to have been permitted; (b) whether the evidence sought to be adduced by the party was not available to it despite the exercise of due diligence; (c) whether additional evidence was 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2025 03:45:32 ::: Page 6 of 6 necessary in order to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment or any other substantial cause of similar nature
- Additional evidence cannot be permitted to be adduced so as to fill in the lacunae or to patch up the weak points in the case..."
(Emphasis added)
10. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.
11. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
02.12.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2025 03:45:32 :::