IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 17270-CII of 2009 and CR No. 4194 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.9.2009 Ram Rattan and others ....Petitioners. Versus Jaswant Kaur and another ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 17270-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 4194 of 2009 In this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant-petitioners, the challenge is to the order dated 11.6.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by them under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) for recalling DW1-Surinder Singh and DW2-Ram Asra for their further cross-examination, was dismissed. The application filed by defendants for recalling the aforesaid witnesses for their further cross-examination was declined by the trial court on the ground that when these witnesses were cross- examined by the defendant-petitioners, no further prayer was made at C.R. No. 4194 of 2009 -2- that time for their re-examination. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code reads thus:- “17. Court may recall and examine witness.- The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.” The trial court after examining the evidence came to the conclusion that no ground for recalling the witnesses of the defendant- petitioners for their further cross-examination was made out especially when the defendants had already availed of the opportunity to cross- examine them. Moreover, from the bare reading of the provisions contained in Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code, reproduced above, it is clear that the application filed by the petitioners was not maintainable as it is the discretion of the court to recall any witness who has been examined and subject to the law of evidence may put such questions to him as it thinks fit. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 11.6.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. September 7, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE