CR/6710/2026 of LALTESH RANI Vs RAMESH KUMAR AND ANR on 10 September 2026

1. The present Revision Petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, vide which the evidence of the petitioner/defendant No.1 has been closed by order.

2. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a Civil Suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement titled ‘Ramesh Kumar Vs. Laltesh Rani etc.’, bearing CS-2903- 2024, was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff vide Annexure P-1, wherein, after the appearance of defendant No.1 and filing of the written statement, issues were framed on 23.09.2025 and the case was adjourned for plaintiff's evidence. She submits that the plaintiff concluded the evidence on 03.02.2026 and the case was adjourned to 13.04.2026 for evidence on behalf of defendant No.1 (petitioner herein) and thereafter to 02.07.2026. On 02.07.2026, since no evidence was adduced, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner/defendant No.1 to lead evidence on 01.08.2026 and thereafter to 21.08.2026. She submits that on 21.08.2026, the husband of the petitioner/defendant No.1 had to be taken to AIIMS, New Delhi, for medical treatment and an application (Annexure P-4) was moved to this effect, seeking adjournment. However, without considering the medical urgency, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order closing the evidence of the petitioner/defendant No.1 by order. She has referred to Annexure P-6, which is the medical record, to substantiate the condition of the husband of the petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner will conclude her evidence, if granted an opportunity to do so, at her own responsibility.

3. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.

4. The zimni orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, are also placed on record along with a copy of the plaint. As such, the petition can be disposed of without calling for the record and in these circumstances, even issuance of notice to the respondents is not warranted, as the same would unnecessarily put a financial burden upon them.

5. After perusing the zimni orders placed on record as well as the application moved by the petitioner before the learned trial Court seeking adjournment on the ground that she had to take her husband to New Delhi for medical treatment, which fact finds support from the record (Annexure P-6), it appears that the learned Civil Judge ought to have taken a humanitarian approach rather than acting in a mechanical manner by closing the evidence of the petitioner by order. It is also apprised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is still pending for rebuttal evidence on 16.09.2026. This being so, if the case was not to be decided on the particular date, i.e. 21.08.2026, when the petitioner had sought an adjournment to lead evidence on account of the medical condition of her husband, the learned trial Court ought to have granted a short adjournment to the petitioner for leading evidence. In this manner, the learned Court appears to have acted in haste.

6. Since the petitioner has made an innocuous prayer seeking an opportunity to lead evidence at her own responsibility, it is observed that no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.1/plaintiff by granting such an opportunity, who can well be compensated by payment of costs, particularly considering the fact that the case is still pending for rebuttal evidence on 16.09.2026.

7. Be that as it may, without commenting on the merits of the case and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 21.08.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal is hereby set aside with a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, to grant two (02) effective opportunities to the petitioner/defendant No.1 to lead evidence at her own responsibility, ₹ subject to payment of 20,000/- as costs to the respondent No.1/plaintiff in Court.

8. The petitioner/defendant No.1 shall, while appearing in person or through her counsel before the learned trial Court on 16.09.2026, which is the date fixed before the trial Court, pay the aforesaid costs to the respondent No.1/plaintiff, whereafter the learned Civil Judge shall grant two (02) effective opportunities to the petitioner to adduce evidence at her own responsibility.

9. Petition stands disposed of.

10. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SANJIV BERRY)

JUDGE 10.09.2026 S.Sharma i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No