CR-6242-2026 IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C R-6242-2026 DDate of Decision: 02.09.2026 Raivinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gurdial Singh ((now deceased) through his LRs and others ...Respondents CORAM: H ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK G UPTA Present: MMr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTATA, J. Thhe present revision petition hass been filed by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 21.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Juudge (Junior Divisio n), Jalandhar, whereby his appl ication for summoning two officcials from the Revvenue Department along withh old revenue records has beenb dismissed. 2. Leearned counsel for the petitio ner contends that the documeents sought to be summoned are necessary for establishing the nature of the suit property, partticularly whether the same is anncestral property, and that deniaal of an opportunity to produce the said evidencee would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner.. 3. I hhave considered the submissionns and perused the impugned ordder.

4. Thhe suit filed by the petitioner iss for declaration of his ownershiip in joint possessioon to the extent of 1/3rd shaare in the suit properties, besides challenge to ccertain title deeds and a mortgaage deed and consequential reliefs. As noticed by the learned trial Court, the petiitioner himself pleaded in the pllaint that the suit pproperty was ancestral and founnded his claim upon such asserttion. Thus, the burrden of establishing the ancesttral character of the property was upon the petittioner from the inception of the suit. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.02 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of Total 33 Pages CR-6242-2026 5. Itt is not the case of the peetitioner that the aforesaid isssue subsequently arose from any evidence ledd by the defendants, or that the defendants inntroduced a new matter, whicch required an answer by wayy of rebuttal. The evidence now sought to be prooduced is intended to establish the very foundatioon of the petitioner's own case. 6. Thhe distinction between evide nce in rebuttal and evidencee to supplement oor complete one's own case is well settled. Rebuttal evidencce is intended to mmeet a case set up by the oppossite party on an issue, on which the burden lies uppon such opposite party. It cannoot ordinarily be permitted to enable a party to supply evidence, which ought to haave been produced in support ofo its original case, oor to fill up a lacuna left in its ev idence.

7. Thhe learned trial Court has speccifically recorded that the case had already reacheed the stage of rebuttal evidennce, if any, followed by argumeents, when the application was moved. The Court further noticed that the petitiooner had already leed his evidence and that his evvidence had earlier been closedd on 12.09.2024 aftter he had availed more than 800 opportunities for the purpose. 8. Thhe power of the Court to perm it additional evidence or to recall a witness is unddoubtedly discretionary and is intended to advance the cause of justice. Howevver, such power cannot be exxercised as a matter of coursee to enable a partyy to repair the deficiencies in itss case after having availed sufficcient opportunity too lead evidence. The Hon’ble Su preme Court in K.K. Velusamy v.v N. Palanisamy, ((2011) 11 SCC 275, and Bagaai Construction v. Gupta Buildding Material Storee, (2013) 14 SCC 1, has cautiooned against permitting proceddural provisions to bbe employed for filling lacuna orr prolonging the trial. 9. Thhe principle has also been noti ced by this Court in Rajesh Kumar and others v. BBabita, decided on 23.12.2022 iin CR-1209-2020, relied upon byy the learned trial CCourt, wherein it was held that a plaintiff cannot be permittedd to lead rebuttal eevidence on an issue on which thhe burden of proof was upon himm.

10. Leearned counsel for the petition er has not been able to show that the proposed revenue records are required to rebut any new fact or evideence introduced byy the defendants. On the contrrary, the application itself indicates YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.02 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of Total 33 Pages CR-6242-2026 that the petitiioner seeks the records from thhe years 1956-57/1958-59 onwaards precisely to esstablish that the properties are ancestral. This was a matter which was required to be established by the petitiioner while leading his substanntive evidence. 11. Peermitting such evidence at this sstage would, therefore, not amoount to permitting genuine rebuttal evidence; itt would amount to reopening the petitioner's caase for the purpose of supplyinng evidence in support of an isssue which was al ways part of his own case. TThe mere fact that the propoosed evidence may have some bearing upon the coontroversy cannot by itself furnish a ground for reoopening the evidence after thee stage at which the petitioner was required to esttablish his case has passed.

12. Thhe revisional jurisdiction of th is Court is supervisory and is not intended to ssubstitute its own discretion ffor that of the trial Court meerely because anothher view may be possible. The immpugned order reflects a conscious exercise of disscretion on the basis of the pleaadings, the stage of the proceedings and the naturee of the evidence sought to be introduced. No jurisdictional errror, material irreguularity or perversity is demonstr ated. 13. It is also relevant that the trial Coourt has not shut out the petitiooner from leading permissible rebuttal evidencee. The matter was adjourned for rebuttal evideence, if any, and arguments. TThus, the order does not result in denial of a fair opportunity to the petitione r to meet any genuinely new casec emerging fromm the defendants' evidence. 14. Inn these circumstances, this Courrt finds no ground to interfere withw the impugnedd order dated 21.05.2026. Thhe revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Notthing contained in this order shaall be construed as an expressioon of opinion on the merits of the suit. Pending mmiscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposedd of. 02.09.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whetherr speaking/reasoned: Yees/No Whetherr reportable: Yees/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.02 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of Total 33 Pages

CR-6242-2026 IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C R-6242-2026 DDate of Decision: 02.09.2026 Raivinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gurdial Singh ((now deceased) through his LRs and others ...Respondents CORAM: H ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK G UPTA Present: MMr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTATA, J. Thhe present revision petition hass been filed by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 21.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Juudge (Junior Divisio n), Jalandhar, whereby his appl ication for summoning two officcials from the Revvenue Department along withh old revenue records has beenb dismissed. 2. Leearned counsel for the petitio ner contends that the documeents sought to be summoned are necessary for establishing the nature of the suit property, partticularly whether the same is anncestral property, and that deniaal of an opportunity to produce the said evidencee would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner.. 3. I hhave considered the submissionns and perused the impugned ordder.

4. Thhe suit filed by the petitioner iss for declaration of his ownershiip in joint possessioon to the extent of 1/3rd shaare in the suit properties, besides challenge to ccertain title deeds and a mortgaage deed and consequential reliefs. As noticed by the learned trial Court, the petiitioner himself pleaded in the pllaint that the suit pproperty was ancestral and founnded his claim upon such asserttion. Thus, the burrden of establishing the ancesttral character of the property was upon the petittioner from the inception of the suit. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.02 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of Total 33 Pages CR-6242-2026 5. Itt is not the case of the peetitioner that the aforesaid isssue subsequently arose from any evidence ledd by the defendants, or that the defendants inntroduced a new matter, whicch required an answer by wayy of rebuttal. The evidence now sought to be prooduced is intended to establish the very foundatioon of the petitioner's own case. 6. Thhe distinction between evide nce in rebuttal and evidencee to supplement oor complete one's own case is well settled. Rebuttal evidencce is intended to mmeet a case set up by the oppossite party on an issue, on which the burden lies uppon such opposite party. It cannoot ordinarily be permitted to enable a party to supply evidence, which ought to haave been produced in support ofo its original case, oor to fill up a lacuna left in its ev idence.

7. Thhe learned trial Court has speccifically recorded that the case had already reacheed the stage of rebuttal evidennce, if any, followed by argumeents, when the application was moved. The Court further noticed that the petitiooner had already leed his evidence and that his evvidence had earlier been closedd on 12.09.2024 aftter he had availed more than 800 opportunities for the purpose. 8. Thhe power of the Court to perm it additional evidence or to recall a witness is unddoubtedly discretionary and is intended to advance the cause of justice. Howevver, such power cannot be exxercised as a matter of coursee to enable a partyy to repair the deficiencies in itss case after having availed sufficcient opportunity too lead evidence. The Hon’ble Su preme Court in K.K. Velusamy v.v N. Palanisamy, ((2011) 11 SCC 275, and Bagaai Construction v. Gupta Buildding Material Storee, (2013) 14 SCC 1, has cautiooned against permitting proceddural provisions to bbe employed for filling lacuna orr prolonging the trial. 9. Thhe principle has also been noti ced by this Court in Rajesh Kumar and others v. BBabita, decided on 23.12.2022 iin CR-1209-2020, relied upon byy the learned trial CCourt, wherein it was held that a plaintiff cannot be permittedd to lead rebuttal eevidence on an issue on which thhe burden of proof was upon himm.

10. Leearned counsel for the petition er has not been able to show that the proposed revenue records are required to rebut any new fact or evideence introduced byy the defendants. On the contrrary, the application itself indicates YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.02 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of Total 33 Pages CR-6242-2026 that the petitiioner seeks the records from thhe years 1956-57/1958-59 onwaards precisely to esstablish that the properties are ancestral. This was a matter which was required to be established by the petitiioner while leading his substanntive evidence. 11. Peermitting such evidence at this sstage would, therefore, not amoount to permitting genuine rebuttal evidence; itt would amount to reopening the petitioner's caase for the purpose of supplyinng evidence in support of an isssue which was al ways part of his own case. TThe mere fact that the propoosed evidence may have some bearing upon the coontroversy cannot by itself furnish a ground for reoopening the evidence after thee stage at which the petitioner was required to esttablish his case has passed.

12. Thhe revisional jurisdiction of th is Court is supervisory and is not intended to ssubstitute its own discretion ffor that of the trial Court meerely because anothher view may be possible. The immpugned order reflects a conscious exercise of disscretion on the basis of the pleaadings, the stage of the proceedings and the naturee of the evidence sought to be introduced. No jurisdictional errror, material irreguularity or perversity is demonstr ated. 13. It is also relevant that the trial Coourt has not shut out the petitiooner from leading permissible rebuttal evidencee. The matter was adjourned for rebuttal evideence, if any, and arguments. TThus, the order does not result in denial of a fair opportunity to the petitione r to meet any genuinely new casec emerging fromm the defendants' evidence. 14. Inn these circumstances, this Courrt finds no ground to interfere withw the impugnedd order dated 21.05.2026. Thhe revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Notthing contained in this order shaall be construed as an expressioon of opinion on the merits of the suit. Pending mmiscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposedd of. 02.09.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whetherr speaking/reasoned: Yees/No Whetherr reportable: Yees/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.02 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of Total 33 Pages