Civil Revision No.2000 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2000 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 30th March, 2010 M/s Baru Ram Banarsi Dass .....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr.Vishal Garg Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L.N.Mittal, J.(Oral) Judgment Debtor has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 10.02.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur thereby permitting cross-examination of petitioner's partner Satpal. Decree holder filed application under Order 21, Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in short “CPC”) requiring the petitioner-Judgment Debtor to state about his properties. The petitioner furnished affidavit Annexure P-1 affirming that the property owned by them as well as the firm had already been auctioned and now, neither the firm nor the partners individually had any moveable or immovable property. Statement of the petitioner's partner Satpal was recorded to the same effect. Decree Holder was permitted to cross-examine the Judgment Debtor who admitted that he had been filing income tax returns. His further cross-examination was deferred with direction to him to produce income tax returns for the last two years. This order is under challenge in the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Order 21, Civil Revision No.2000 of 2010(O&M) 2 Rule 41 of the CPC provides for examination of the Judgment Debtor to ascertain his properties but does not provide for cross-examination of the Judgment Debtor for this purpose. Analogy was sought to be drawn from the provision of Order 10, Rule 2 of the CPC. The contention cannot be accepted. Purpose of Order 10, Rule 2 of the CPC is to record statement of either party to clarify the pleadings of the parties to elucidate the matter in controversy. However purpose of Order 21, Rule 4 of the CPC is to ascertain the property if any owned by the Judgment Debtor so that the same may be sold for recovery of the decretal amount. It is not explained how Judgment Debtor/petitioner would be prejudiced if he is cross-examined provided he has nothing to conceal from the Court. If the petitioner actually has no property, he should have nothing to fear from his cross-examination. On the other hand, examination within the purview of Order 21, Rule 41 of the CPC, includes cross-examination because the purpose is to ascertain whether the Judgment Debtor has any property so that the money decree may be satisfied. For the said purpose, if the Judgment Debtor is cross-examined, there would be nothing illegal in it. On the other hand, if cross-examination is not permitted, the Judgment Debtor may falsely state that he does not own any property. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. 30th March, 2010 ( L.N.Mittal ) Seema-II Judge