Civil Revision No.8282 of 2010(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.8282 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:-06.09.2011 Dalip Singh. ......Petitioner. Versus Ajay Kumar & Anr. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Nithin Thatai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Aneja, Advocate for the respondents. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed assailing the order dated 17.11.2010 passed by the learned trial Court whereby plaintiff's application for permission to lead additional evidence has been dismissed in view of the fact that both the parties had led their evidence and the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence. It is apparent that the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner was for declaring the sale deed dated 17.11.2003 as null and void based on a forged and misutilization of the documents signed by the plaintiff and submitted before the defendant-Vinod Kumar, his commission agent, from Civil Revision No.8282 of 2010(O&M) #2# whom allegedly a loan had been obtained by the plaintiff. It is further claimed that Vinod Kumar on the basis of a power of attorney executed in his favour by the plaintiff misused his position and the power of attorney to fraudulently effect sale of land belonging to the plaintiff/petitioner in favour of his real brother. After the parties had led their evidence, it was realized by the petitioner/plaintiff that plaintiff was partly cross examined on 01.12.2009 and his remaining cross was deferred on the request of the Counsel for the defendant, the present application for leading additional evidence in the shape of getting the cross of the plaintiff completed was preferred which has been declined. At the time of arguments learned Counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner realizing that instead of filing an application under Section 151 CPC, he ought to have filed one under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, he prays for withdrawal of the application filed under Section 151 CPC with liberty to file fresh one under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for remaining cross examination of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant submits that the application under Section 151 CPC for the aforesaid purpose was not maintainable. He, however, does not seriously oppose the prayer for permission to withdraw the application dated 18.10.2010 (P.5) under Section 151 CPC. After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the application filed under Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been dismissed as withdrawn with further liberty to move an application, if so advised, under Order 18 Civil Revision No.8282 of 2010(O&M) #3# Rule 17 CPC and the same shall be decided according to law by the learned trial Court without being influenced by the learned trial Court. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE September 06, 2011 Vinay