In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4015 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:July 22, 2009 Accountant General (Au), Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Chandigarh --Petitioner versus K.L.Baghla and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.I.S.Sidhu,Advocate, for the petitioner. *** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that order dated 23.5.2009(Annexure P- 6) passed by Additional Civil Judge( Senior Division) Abohar, be set aside. Plaintiff- K.L.Baghla had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that Audit Record dated 12.6.2000 for the time period from April 1995 to May, 2000 making objection in para No. 2 of the Audit Report against the record of plaintiff's service book was illegal, null and void. Relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction was also sought. During the pendency of the suit an application under Section 123 of the Evidence Act was filed on 10.10.2006 seeking exemption from cross examination of Hitesh Kumar, Senior Audit Officer. Vide order dated Civil Revision No. 4015 of 2009(O&M) -2- 30.7.2007 (Annexure P-3), the said application was dismissed on the ground that it had not been filed by the competent person. Thereafter, an application was filed for review of order dated 30.7.2007(Annexure P-3). Vide the impugned order dated 23.5.2009, the said application seeking review of order dated 30.7.2007 was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now by way of review, all the relevant documents have been sought to placed on record depicting that the person who had earlier filed the application was the competent person. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition is devoid of any merit. Since the application filed by the petitioner seeking exemption from cross examination was dismissed vide order dated 30.7.2007 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that it had not been filed by competent person, then review could not be sought of the said order by now placing the relevant documents on record. There was no error in the order dated 30.7.2007. The said order declining permission for exemption from cross examination was not challenged by the petitioner by resorting to appropriate available remedy. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 22, 2009 PARAMJIT