Civil Revision No.3091 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3091 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 03.03.2011 Smt.Shanta Jain ...... Petitioner VERSUS Rajesh Kumar and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Jindal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.P.L.Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the order dated 27.04.2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, declining the request of petitioner-defendant No.2 (herein referred as 'the petitioner') for tendering the affidavit of Gian Chand Jain-General Attorney of defendant No.2 on the ground that he had already led evidence and she has not rebutted the evidence led by defendant No.15. Factual background of the case is that in the suit filed by Rajesh Kumar and Bipan Kumar plaintiffs (now respondents), defendant No.15 filed a counter claim while impleading the petitioner as party- defendant. Defendant No.15 led evidence in support of his counter claim whereafter the petitioner wanted to lead evidence in rebuttal to the additional issue framed after the pleadings filed in the counter-claim. Heard, I agree with the contention of learned counsel for the Civil Revision No.3091 of 2009 2 petitioner that the counter claim is a plaint for all intents and purposes and is governed by the rules applicable to the plaints. Order 8 Rule 6 (a)(4) CPC reads as under. “The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.” It is also not disputed that the plaints are to be registered as suits, therefore, the Court would also proceed in accordance with aforesaid Rule 6(a)(4) CPC to which the parties have no objection. The index of the counter claim further indicates that Vishal Kumar Gupta (defendant No.15 in the main suit) has raised this counter claim against Shanta Jain petitioner- contesting respondent as well as other respondents. She, being adversary in the counter claim, had every right to rebut the evidence led by counter claimant in support of his claim. Thus, the trial Court appears to have fallen in error while prohibiting the petitioner from examining her general power of attorney into evidence and the defendant No.15 would be at liberty to cross examine such witness or witnesses as examined by her. However, it is made clear that the adversaries, who may have admitted the claim of the petitioner, would be first to cross-examine such witnesses. As regards the impugned order with regard to framing of additional issues, the petitioner does not press this point. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the impugned order with regard to refusing to take the evidence of Shanta Jain-petitioner in the suit is set aside. However, it is made clear that the witnesses already examined in the suit would not be examined again. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 03.03.2011 mamta-II