Civil Revision No. 5803 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5803 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 26th,2011 Jatinder Mohan Singh alias Mohani and others .... Petitioners Versus I.P.Atre and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. R.K.Verma , Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by the defendants under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure P/3), vide which Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, dismissed the application of the petitioners for recalling the plaintiffs' witnesses. Basing the claim on murder of Ms. Manisha, Advocate, the plaintiff-respondents No. 1 and 2, had brought a suit for Rs.35.00 lacs as damages against the defendant-petitioners. In the said suit, evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded. Some of the witnesses examined by way of affidavits were not cross-examined by the defendants despite last opportunity and in the circumstances of the case, it was deemed that they were duly cross-examined. Now the evidence of the defendants is being taken. The Civil Revision No. 5803 of 2011 2 .. defendants have filed an application for permission to cross- examine the witnesses. The said application has been dismissed vide the impugned order by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. On the last date of hearing, petitioners were asked to specify the names of persons for whose cross-examination permission is being sought. Learned counsel for the petitioners has given those names as - Harjit Kaur (PW-10), Bhavendu (PW-14), I.P.Atri (PW-17), Tejwant Kaur (PW-19) and Raj Pal (PW-20). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the counsel representing the defendants did not play his role properly. According to him, on account of his misconduct, the valuable opportunity of cross-examining the plaintiffs' witnesses was allowed to go waste. He has submitted that if these 5 witnesses are not cross-examined by the defendants to bring out the truth, their statements would be deemed to be accepted and the trial would be reduced to virtually an admission case, which it is not. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the application for cross-examination of the witnesses had been given on 13.10.2010 and the application has been decided after a lapse of 10 months. Arguing that the entire delay in the disposal of this case so far, is not attributable to the defendant- petitioners, the impugned order is prayed to be set-aside. The impugned order clearly shows that a lot of time has been taken by the defendants in cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs themselves faced the tragic Civil Revision No. 5803 of 2011 3 .. event and they are seeking compensation on account of the same. The attempt on the part of the petitioners for recall of the PWs, on the one hand, can be said to be a measure to further delay the disposal of the suit. However, on the other hand, the case of the petitioners would suffer on account of fault of their counsel in not cross-examining the plaintiffs' witnesses. Justice should not be allowed to suffer in such cases. It has been laid down by Hon`ble the Supreme Court in K.K.Velusamy Vs. N.Palanisamy 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 875 that though there is no provision providing for re-opening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross- examination, yet, the inherent power under section 151 CPC can be invoked in appropriate cases to reopen the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent power of the court is further held to be not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall any witness to enable the court to put such question to elicit any clarifications. Keeping in view the above said pronouncement of Hon`ble Apex Court, I find the exercise of discretion by learned trial court in declining prayer to be capricious. Therefore, I accept the revision petition and set-aside the impugned order. However, the defendants cannot be given a long rope to further delay the disposal of this case. For cross-examination of 5 witnesses, mentioned above, I give 30 minutes per witness and only one opportunity would be available to the defendants-petitioners for the Civil Revision No. 5803 of 2011 4 .. cross-examination of the witnesses. They would not make a cause for adjournment if the witnesses appeared in the court and if they fail to cross-examine the witnesses or any one of them, the right to cross examine them would stand forfeited. For this opportunity, the petitioners are burdened with Rs.5,000/- as costs payable to the plaintiffs. Since, this revision petition has been decided without giving notice to the respondents, they may apply for recall of this order, if they think if appropriate to do so. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 26th , 2011 som