CIVIL REVISION NO.4541 OF 2006 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 01, 2008 M/s Sushil Kumar Saravjeet Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Harnek Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B. R. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The grievance of the petitioner is that Harnek Singh, respondent No.1 has been wrongly granted permission to examine Mohinder qua the record for the period 1997 to 2001. Two civil suit Nos.363-C of 2002 and 208-C of 2002 were ordered to be consolidated. Harnek Singh, respondent No.1, filed an application pleading that no opportunity for leading evidence was given to him CIVIL REVISION NO.4541 OF 2006 :{ 2 }: and he had also not had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness of petitioner, M/s Sushil Kumar Saravjit Singh Commission Agent. This application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that respondent No.1 was duly represented by Advocate S.S.Thind in Civil Suit No.363-C referred to above and witnesses appearing on behalf of the petitioner as DW1 to DW4 were cross- examined at length. It is further pleaded that even if the counsel has been changed that would not be any ground to permit further cross- examination of these witnesses. The civil suits bearing Nos.208-C and 363-C, both of 2002, were ordered to be consolidated on 16.4.2004. Suit No.363-C was clubbed with suit No.208-C, which was to be tried as a main suit. Respondent No.2 is the plaintiff in this suit whereas the petitioner is a defendant. In the second suit, petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 and 2 alongwith others are the defendants. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 were represented by Sh.S.S.Thind in suit No.363-C. At the time of consolidation, evidence of the plaintiff, Harminder, in Suit No.208-C, had already been concluded and the case was pending for petitioner's evidence as defendant. Four witnesses were examined after the consolidation and all of them were duly cross-examined. Harnek Singh, respondent No.1, filed application to the effect that two of the defendants had not cross- examined the witnesses produced by the petitioner and they be recalled for cross-examination. Prayer further is that applicant and these two defendants be permitted to lead evidence as well. The application was only instituted by Harnek Singh, who CIVIL REVISION NO.4541 OF 2006 :{ 3 }: is defendant in civil suit 363-C. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have already been given up by the Advocate and hence, the prayer made on their behalf for recall of a witness would not arise. In any case, Harnek Singh has no right to advance any prayer on behalf of defendant Nos.3 and 4, who have not filed any such application. In the second application, however, the applicant and the other defendants should have been permitted to lead evidence in the affirmative before M/s Sushil Kumar. Accordingly, while declining the prayer of respondent for affording an opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses of the petitioner, Harnek Singh, respondent has been permitted to bring his evidence in the affirmative. The reasons, as mentioned, would show that the right of Harnek Singh to lead evidence can not be fully declined. He only wants to examine Mahinder to depose about the account books. Limited prayer has been granted for the witness to bring the record of accounts for the years 1997 to 2001. No right has been granted to these respondents to query about the record 2001- 2002 onwards. The application accordingly has been declined by finding that no case for striking of the statement of PW Mohinder is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Joginder Singh Vs. Devinder Kumar, 1999 (1) Civil Court Cases 202 (P&H) to say that once a witness is cross- examined he can not be recalled for further cross-examination on the ground that he was not cross-examined effectively. The ratio of case is not attracted to the facts of the instant case. Here the right to cross-examine the witness has been sought after consolidation of a CIVIL REVISION NO.4541 OF 2006 :{ 4 }: suit and it is not on the ground that earlier he was not effectively cross-examined. For the reasons afore-mentioned, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. April 01, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE