Kanya Shikshan Maha Vidayalya Parbandh Samiti v. Dera Baba Guru Brahma Nand Ji Bani Pundir And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7128 of 2024 (O&M) Date of decision: May 19th, 2026 Kanya Shikshan Maha Vidayalya Parbandh Samiti .....Petitioner

Versus

Dera Baba Guru Brahma Nand Ji Bani Pundri and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. L.K. Gollen, Advocate for the respondents.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, it is the petitioner-plaintiff who has filed the suit for recovery and thus, the delay in the proceedings would primarily prejudice the petitioner. It is submitted that one of the applications filed by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner was allowed by the trial Court but the respondents have challenged the same by filing CR-3862-2023 in which the operation of the said order has been stayed. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, at least two effective opportunities should be granted to

the petitioner to conclude its entire evidence and the order dated 30.08.2024 be set aside.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the present case, issues were framed on 06.05.2016 and several opportunities have been taken by the petitioner to conclude its evidence. It is submitted that in case any opportunity is to be granted to the petitioner, then heavy cost should be imposed on the petitioner and also opportunity should be given to the respondents to lead rebuttal evidence to the evidence which the petitioner is now seeking to lead as the case is now fixed for final arguments. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of strong objection raised on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is ready to pay reasonable cost.

5.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken by the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for respondents, the present revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 is set aside with the following observations/directions:

(i) The petitioner would be given two effective opportunities at own responsibility to conclude its entire evidence subject to the petitioner depositing cost of 24,000/- within a period of two ₹ weeks from today. The said cost would be paid to the respondents/defendants in equal proportion. In case the said amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, then the present revision petition be deemed to have been dismissed.

(ii) The respondents-defendants would also be granted two effective opportunities at own responsibility to rebut the evidence led by the petitioner, in case they so desire. 6.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 19th, 2026 (VIKAS BAHL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No