Civil Revision No. 5830 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5830 of 2011 Date of Decision: 23.9.2011 Gola Singh ... Petitioner Versus Paras Ram and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rakesh K. Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed to assail the impugned order dated 27.7.2011 (Annexure P2), passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratia, District Fatehabad, whereby the application, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, for leading additional evidence has been declined. In the application, so filed, the petitioner/plaintiff intended to examine Paras Ram and Hans Raj, who were cited as witnesses by defendants No.1 to 3. It is an admitted fact that defendants No.1 to 3 have not examined these witnesses. In other words, it can be inferred that they were dropped by the said defendants. The only plea raised by the petitioner/plaintiff, in the application for leading additional evidence, to summon Paras Ram and Hans Raj, who were cited as defendants' witnesses, is that they have Civil Revision No. 5830 of 2011 2 agreed to appear and support the case of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that these witnesses were not examined by the petitioner/plaintiff in his evidence as he was sanguine that there will be an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses. However, the said witnesses have not been examined by the defendants. Learned counsel submits that non-examination of these witnesses, by the defendants No.1 to 3, has caused prejudice to the case of the petitioner. The trial Court, while deciding the application, has held that since the witnesses, sought to be called, were not examined by the defendants No.1 to 3 as they are masters of their defence, the petitioner cannot be permitted to call them again especially when he has already closed his evidence. The trial Court has validly exercised its discretion. This Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, will not disturb the order passed by the trial Court as the same suffers from no infirmity or illegality. Hence, no interference in the present revision petition is warranted and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 23, 2011 “DK”