C. R. No. 1016 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1016 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 17, 2010 Sushma Rani @ Seema Rani .... Petitioner Vs. Dhanpati and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by Sushma Rani @ Seema Rani, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 19.12.2009 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar, thereby dismissing application moved by the petitioner for recall of witnesses of respondents no.1 to 3, who have filed the main petition in the trial court for Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Although copy of application, which was dismissed by the impugned order, has not been placed on record of the instant revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has shown a copy of the said application dated 27.08.2009. It is mentioned in the application that respondent no.1 Dhanpati (petitioner no.1 in the main case before the trial court) appeared as witness on 26.02.2005 and thereafter, two more C. R. No. 1016 of 2010 2 witnesses namely Kali Ram and Ram Phal were also examined as witnesses by the petitioners of the main case. It is alleged in the application that the aforesaid witnesses did not give clear replies to the questions put in cross- examination and therefore, clear position has not emerged and it is necessary to recall the witnesses to make the picture clear. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it is necessary to recall the aforesaid witnesses for further cross-examination to elicit clear answers to depict that Dhanpati – respondent no.1 is not legally wedded wife of late Om Parkash, regarding whose estate Succession Certificate is claimed. The contention cannot be accepted because admittedly, the witnesses, who are sought to be recalled, have already been cross-examined at the instance of petitioner herein and even suggestions were put to the said witnesses that Dhanpati is not legally wedded wife of late Om Parkash. It is not explained as to what new questions or facts are to be put to witnesses in the further cross-examination. On the other hand, the application for recalling the witnesses was moved 4½ years after the witnesses had been examined. No new fact has been brought on record to make out a case for recall of the witnesses for further cross-examination. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. It has been rightly pleaded by respondents no.1 to 3, while opposing the aforesaid application of the petitioner, that the only intention of the petitioner is to prolong the disposal of the petition, which is already 5½ years old. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 17, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE