CR No.2720/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2720/2011 Date of decision: 27.04.2011. Kulbhushan Gupta ....................Petitioner v. M/s Show Business Pvt.Ltd. And others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.RS Bajaj,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendant no.1/petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 11.2.2011 (P2) whereby his application for recalling plaintiff for further cross examination has been dismissed. In brief the facts are that respondent/plaintiff filed an application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the defendants including defendant no.1/petitioner for having violated the orders passed by the learned trial court. It is evident that AW1 Madan Kapur had appeared for the plaintiff and had tendered his affidavit in examination-in-chief on 20.11.2006. Thereafter he was partly cross examined by Sh.IS Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of defendant no.1/ petitioner on 8.1.2008. Said AW1 Madan Kapur was again offered for CR No.2720/2011 2 remaining cross examination on 28.5.2008. Instead of proceeding with the cross examination, Sh.IS Bhatia,Advocate made a request for adjournment on the ground that the co-counsel Sh. SK Bhanot would conduct the remaining cross examination. The request was declined and the cross examination of AW1 Madan Kapur was treated as nil and thereafter the counsel for the plaintiff/applicant closed his evidence on the same day. Subsequently, an application dated 7.4.2009 was preferred by defendant no.1/petitioner through Sh.SK Bhanot,Advocate for recalling AW1 Madan Kapur for further cross examination. Plaintiff/respondent filed reply to the said application. After hearing both sides the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 11.2.2011(P2) dismissed the application. Hence the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the defendant no.1/petitioner submits that earlier counsel Sh.IS Bhatia had been instructed not to appear for defendant for the reason that he had been appearing against defendant no.1/petitioner in other cases relating to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, a succeding Advocate namely Sh.SK Bhanot had been engaged to conduct the case. In these circumstances it is contended that the approach adopted by the learned trial court was not justified. After hearing the learned counsel for the defendant no.1/ petitioner, I find no ground to entertain his plea. The learned Court while declining the request vide order dated 28.5.2008 has very CR No.2720/2011 3 categorically recorded that Sh.SK Bhanot was engaged on 20.11.2006 besides Sh.IS Bhatia,Advocate and even thereafter Sh.IS Bhatia had been consistently appearing for the defendant/petitioner and contested the case on his behalf. In fact, Sh. IS Bhatia had partly cross examined AW1 Madan Kapur on 8.1.2008 and Sh.Bhatia was also present on 28.5.2008 when AW1 was again offered for remaining cross examination. The defendants after passing of the order dated 28.5.2008 and before filing of the application for recalling of AW1, had admittedly availed 4 opportunities to lead their evidence without producing any witness. In these circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 27.04.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge