Civil Revision No. 1684 of 2007 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1684 of 2007 Date of decision: 1.05.2009. Ajit Singh Petitioner Versus Piar Kaur and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate for the respondents No.3,4 and 6. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The facts, as apparent from the impugned order itself, in the first instance:- The plaintiff-petitioner never ever entered into witness box. His affidavit ( in lieu of the purported examination-in-chief) was tendered by the learned counsel representing him. The trial proceeded and the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner came to be closed by his learned counsel vide his statement dated 12.5.2006. It was subsequently on 1.8.2006 that the plaintiff- petitioner applied for the leave of the Court to enter the witness box for cross-examination of the party opposite. It is that plea of the plaintiff-petitioner which was negatived by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 31.1.2007. The Court observed that the Civil Revision No. 1684 of 2007 -2- ***** recall of the plaintiff-petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination was meaning less as there is no examination-in-chief itself of his available on record. The view obtained was that the mere tendering into evidence the affidavit of the plaintiff-petitioner by the learned counsel representing him did not constitute the examination-in-chief. As noticed by the learned Trial Court, the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner came to be closed by his own learned counsel by making a statement. Further the plaintiff-petitioner never ever entered the witness box for tendering his affidavit (in lieu of the examination-in-chief) into evidence. The prayer made by the plaintiff- petitioner before the learned Trial Court was only for his recall for facing the cross-examination. So, there is no request for him to allow his recall for making examination-in-chief or tendering his affidavit into evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief. The matter has already listed for the evidence of the party opposite. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon Paramjit Kaur and others Vs. Gurjant Singh and others 2006 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 646 is misconceived. In that case, the examination-in-chief of the witness had indeed been recorded and it is only his cross -examination which had been deferred. It is further apparent from that judgment that witness in question was a Handwriting Expert who stepped into witness box and tendered his report (and the accompanying documents) into evidence. In the case evidence of an Expert, it is matter of routine to grant adjournment for the purpose of cross-examination. It was under this peculiar Civil Revision No. 1684 of 2007 -3- ***** circumstance that a Coordinate Bench (Vinod K. Sharma, J.) allowed the recall of that witness because his cross-examination had been left out by mistake. The facts of the case before this Court are entirely different. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 01, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge