IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 974 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 11, 2008 Kuldip Singh @ Pargat Singh …..Petitioner Versus Surinder Kaur and others …..Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5. T.P.S. MANN, J. Order passed on 4.1.2008 by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Assandh, while allowing the application filed by defendant/respondent No. 1 for permission to re-examine herself, has been challenged by the plaintiff/petitioner by filing the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While appearing as DW5, defendant Surinder Kaur tendered her affidavit by way of her examination-in-chief on 30.4.2007. She was, however, not cross-examined by the plaintiff on that very day on account Civil Revision No. 974 of 2008 -2- of request of the latter. Accordingly, her cross-examination was deferred. Before her cross-examination could start, an application was made on behalf of Surinder Kaur to tender another affidavit by way of supplementary evidence. According to her, some material facts could not be mentioned by her in her affidavit already tendered by way of her examination-in-chief. Her request was, however, declined by the trial Court on 25.8.2007 for the reason that she had not been cross-examined uptil then. The cross-examination was finally concluded on 7.9.2007, whereafter another application was moved for re-examination of Surinder Kaur but the said application was dismissed on 18.9.2007 as specific points for re-examination did not find mention in the same. Surinder Kaur challenged the order dated 18.9.2007 by filing Civil Revision No. 5050 of 2007, which was, however, dismissed by this Court on October 04, 2007 as having been withdrawn and she was given liberty to move the trial Court afresh by filing an application for re-examination. This time, Surinder Kaur filed an application dated 19.10.2007, wherein she specifically averred in para 6 about the facts, which, according to her, were material for the disposal of the case and could not be stated by her in her first affidavit. Her prayer was allowed by the trial Court on 4.1.2008, which order has been challenged by the plaintiff by filing the present revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once Surinder Kaur-respondent had tendered her affidavit by way of examination-in-chief, she could not be permitted thereafter to submit another affidavit by way of her additional examination-in-chief as under Civil Revision No. 974 of 2008 -3- the garb of the same, she was only trying to fill lacunae in the case. Relying on Smt. Surinder Kaur v. Karanbir Singh and another, AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 377 , learned counsel submitted that Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. did not permit a party to re-examine any witness to fill the lacuna in the case. It is also submitted that a similar request made by Surinder Kaur was earlier declined by this Court when her revision was dismissed on October 04, 2007. Surinder Kaur-defendant had appeared as her own witness before the trial Court as DW5. She submitted her affidavit by way of her examination-in-chief. She was then offered for cross-examination but a request was made on behalf of the plaintiff for deferring the same. Before she could be cross-examined by the plaintiff, Surinder Kaur-defendant came up with an application to tender another affidavit by way of supplementary evidence but that was not entertained on the ground that she had not been cross-examined by that time. It was, thus, clear that the plaintiff had not pointed out any lacuna in the case which could prompt Surinder Kaur-defendant to come up with another affidavit by way of her supplementary evidence for filling it. She had not been cross-examined as yet when she comes up with a prayer for tendering another affidavit. Some relevant facts appeared to have surfaced which could not be mentioned by her in her first affidavit and, therefore, she was justified in requesting for tendering another affidavit by way of her supplementary evidence. Civil Revision No. 974 of 2008 -4- In the case of Smt. Surinder Kaur (supra), the plaintiff therein, had already examined himself as PW2 and one Sant Pal Singh as PW3. Their cross-examination already stood completed. At that stage, a request had been made to allow further cross-examination of the two witnesses of the plaintiff, which was declined. On the other hand, in the present case, Smt. Surinder Kaur-defendant had not been cross-examined and in the meantime a request had come from her side to tender another affidavit by way of her supplementary evidence. The revision (Civil Revision No. 5050 of 2007) filed by Surinder Kaur-defendant earlier was dismissed by this Court on October 04, 2007 as having been withdrawn. At the same time she was granted liberty to move the trial Court afresh by filing an application for her re- examination. Armed with the order, Surinder Kaur-defendant filed another application dated 19.10.2007 wherein she stated necessary facts, which have now been found by the trial Court to be necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. The impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The revision, being without any merit is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 11, 2008 JUDGE satish