Civil Revison No.547 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revison No.547 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:28.01.2010. Santa Singh ...Petitioner Versus Jagtar Singh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. A.S.Manaise, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. It is beyond the pale of controversy that Resham Singh Numberdar came to be examined as DW1 and he was duly subjected to the cross-examination. It is thereafter only that a plea was raised on behalf of the plaintiff – petitioner for the recall of that witness for further cross-examination as certain questions, having relevant bearing on the controversy, could not be addressed to him. The plea was negatived by the learned Trial Court. In revision, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that the impugned order deserves invalidation as the further cross-examination, to be directed at the witness, would help the Court to adjudicate upon the controversy completely and effectively. In that context, he points out that an affidavit, purporting to have been sworn by Resham Singh aforementioned, had initially been placed on record, though it was not formally tendered into evidence. On the date he entered the witness box, his examination-in-chief was recorded on oath and the same implies to the cross-examination. It is argued that some Civil Revison No.547 of 2010 (O&M) -2- part of the contents of the affidavit have to be put to that witness in order to enable him to explain the same. The present is a pure and simple case in which the party, which proposed to cross-examine Resham Singh Numberdar as respondent – witness, may have initially decided to tender into evidence his affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief. However, it appears to have changed its mind and opted to examine him straightway on oath. No exception can, obviously, be taken to the adoption of that procedure. That affidavit never ever came to be tendered into evidence. Even otherwise, if the petitioner herein wanted to confront Resham Singh Numberdar with any part of the affidavit, purporting to have been sworn by him, he had all the time to do so when the witness was under examination. If the petitioner herein refrained from doing so, he cannot be allowed to raise a plea for recall of that witness just because there had been a change of counsel in the meantime and a new counsel came to represent the petitioner at the trial. The petition is held to be devoid of merit. It shall stand dismissed accordingly. January 28, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE