IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4997 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.09.2009. Hawa Singh .....Petitioner versus Suraj Mal and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.4997 of 2009 and 4998 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both cases. For brevity, the facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.4997 of 2009. The petitioner-tenant impugns the order dated 27.7.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, whereby his application to recall PW3 and DW1 for their further cross- examination/additional examination-in-chief, has been dismissed. C.R. No.4997 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Two civil suits for recovery have been filed by the respondent-plaintiffs against the petitioner-defendant. In both the cases, parties have led and closed their respective evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant moved an application to recall PW3 and DW1 as his new counsel wanted to put some additional questions to these witnesses. The applications having been declined by the trial Court, the petitioner- defendant has approached this Court. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in “Shera in Delhi versus Asha Ram of Rohtak, 1987 HRR 251” and a decision of the Delhi High Court in “J.K.Jain (Dr.) versus Krisnaram Baldeo, 2008 (3) PLR-4”, in order to contend that a party should not suffer on account of any lapse on the part of his counsel. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. There can hardly be any dispute that a party should not be allowed to suffer on account of any lapse on the part of its counsel. The facts of each case, however, would be relevant for applying the said principle. In a case where due to absence or non-availability of the counsel, if a party has been deprived of its right to cross-examination or examination in-chief of witness, the Court would be well within its right to invoke its powers under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and recall the witness for further cross-examination/examination in chief, as the case may be. The situation is entirely different where the party has been given and availed that opportunity. Change of counsel cannot be, per-se, a valid ground to re-summon the witness, fill up the lacunae or re- C.R. No.4997 of 2009 (O&M) 3 start the cross-examination afresh and consequently de-novo proceedings. This is what precisely has happened in the present case. The revision petitions stand dismissed. 02-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE