CR No.5226/2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5226/2011(O&M) Date of decision: 05.09.2011. Didar Singh ....................Petitioner v. Surinder Kumar and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) The instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by petitioner/defendant-Didar Singh is directed against the order dated 9.8.2011 (P5) whereby his application under Section 151 CPC for recalling PW2 Shamsher Singh for further cross examination has been dismissed. It is apparent from the record that respondent/plaintiff Surinder Kumar had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 19.5.1998, on 26.7.1999. After framing of the issues the plaintiff examined marginal witness Shamsher Singh as PW2 and he was cross examined in detail. Thereafter, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. During the evidence of the defendant, said Shamsher Singh was sought to be examined as DW6, who in his affidavit has deposed absolutely contrary to the what he had deposed while appearing as PW2. On the application moved by the plaintiff the examination-in-chief of said Shamsher Singh as DW6 was struck off in CR No.5226/2011(O&M) 2 view of facts of the present case. Hence the subsequent application was instituted by the defendant for recalling of PW2 Shamsher Singh for further cross examination. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner submits that in view of subsequent facts having been brought to his notice that Shamsher Singh has stated that in view of the pressure exerted by plaintiff-Surinder Kumar before whom his jewellery had been pledged, he had been forced to depose in favour of the plaintiff. He thus contends that the recalling of said witness for further cross examination is necessary for the proper decision of the case. After hearing the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 9.8.2011. The learned trial court has noticed the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.K.Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, 2011(2) Civil Court Cases 823 that the power to recall a witness is discretionary and should be used sparingly, and in order to clarify certain doubts of the court. In the present case it is apparent that the said witness had been won over by the defendant/petitioner who has taken a u-turn in his stand. In my opinion, the learned trial court has correctly declined the recalling of the said witness. Dismissed. 05.09.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge