C.R. No.714 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.714 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.3.2008 M/s Eureka Industries and others .....Petitioners Vs. Mrs.Anjana Shoor ...Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Rajinder Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Mandeep S.Sachdev, Advocate for the respondent. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this revision is to set aside the order dated 22.12.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby application filed for recalling of PW-1 was dismissed by the trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Though PW-1 (the respondent) was cross-examined at length by the petitioners, it is, however, asserted, by counsel for the petitioners, that certain vital questions that travel to the root of the present controversy were inadvertently omitted by their then counsel. It is, therefore, prayed that PW-1 be recalled, so as to enable the petitioners to put questions `a to l', as detailed in the present pleading, as without eliciting a response to the aforementioned questions, the petitioners defence would be incomplete. The respondent has filed a suit for rendition of accounts, pursuant to the dissolution of a firm. The questions appearing at clauses `a C.R. No.714 of 2008 2 to l' of para 16 (ii) of the grounds of revision, in my considered opinion, are irrelevant, for the purpose of drawing up of a preliminary decree, but may if relevant be pressed into service in proceedings for drawing up of a final decree. The questions, in essence, relate to a memorandum of settlement, assets allegedly transferred pursuant thereto and assets created by the respondent from the assets received by her, as a result of the alleged memorandum of settlement dated 31.12.1998. These questions, can be validly put-forth when accounts are to be examined and, therefore, during proceedings for drawing up of the final decree. The learned trial Court was, therefore, right in refusing to accept the petitioners prayer to recall PW-1. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is dismissed. 13.3.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE