Civil Revision No. 5809 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5809 of 2011 Date of Decision: 22.9.2011 Shiv Kumar ... Petitioner Versus Jagdish Chander and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sunder Lal Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the impugned order dated 29.8.2011 (Annexure P4), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, whereby application dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P1) filed by the petitioner for recalling the witness PW.1 B.L. Taneja, Stamp Vendor, has been dismissed, be set aside. A perusal of the record shows that PW.1 B.L. Taneja, Stamp Vendor, was examined on 13.3.2008. Thereafter, four other witnesses, namely PW.2 Raj Kumar, a Clerk from the office of Haryana Urban Development Authority, PW.3 Subhash Kumar Basheshar, Cashier- cum-Clerk from the office of Union Bank of India, PW.4 Sewa Singh and PW.5 Gyasu Ram had been examined by the plaintiffs and their cross- Civil Revision No. 5809 of 2011 2 examinations were also concluded. In the application (Annexure P1), the ground stated for recalling PW.1 B.L. Taneja, Stamp Vendor, is that on the day when the witness was cross-examined, the main counsel was not available and he was cross-examined by the counsel who was not acquainted with the facts of the case and therefore, the witness could not be cross-examined thoroughly. The trial Court has declined the relief on the ground that PW.1 B.L. Taneja, Stamp Vendor, was examined on 13.3.2008, whereas the application for recalling the said witness, was only filed on 13.10.2010 i.e. after the gap of two years and seven months. The petitioner was not diligent enough to approach the Court at the very initial stage for recalling the witness. In the present revision petition, no ground has been pleaded that PW.1 B.L. Taneja could not be cross-examined as the main counsel was not available. Furthermore, this Court is of the view that once the evidence of other four witnesses has been concluded, recalling of PW.1 B.L. Taneja, at this stage, may provide an opportunity to the petitioner to fill up the lacunas. Thus, on the touchstone of fair play, prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that the discretion has been validly exercised by the trial Court. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 22, 2011 “DK”