Civil Revision No. 3991 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3991 of 2009 Date of decision : 8.1.2010 Hakikat Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Darshan Kaur ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Viney Puri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Gauravjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. On 16.8.2007, the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar granted the following order:- “One witness is present and cross examined. Another witness not turned up to face cross examination. Evidence of the plaintiff is therefore, closed as last and final opportunity was granted to the plaintiff. Now for evidence of the defendant to come up on 16.10.2007. List of witnesses/PF/DM if any be filed within 7 working days.” It was thereafter that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a plea for the recall of PW Naval Kishore who had been noticed in the order dated 16.8.2007 to have refrained from turning up for cross-examination. The petitioner is in revision against the order dated 3.6.2009 (Annexure P-2). It would be evident from a perusal of annexure P-1 that the learned Trial Court noticed that one witness, who was present the Court, was subjected to cross-examination. The Court further noticed that yet Civil Revision No. 3991 of 2009 -2- **** another witness had not turned up for purpose of being cross-examined. That order does not, at all, notice why the cross-examination of that witness had been deferred. It also did not notice the circumstances under which that witness had not turned up. There also is no indication, in the course of that order, whether it was for the first time when witness had refrained from entering appearance or that he was a consistent defaulter. There is also no indication in that order about whether there was any obligation on the part of that witness to appear on his own by having been bound down or whether any liability has been imposed upon the plaintiff- petitioner to produce him and there was a default on his part in the relevant behalf. In that view of things, it was impermissible for the learned Trial Court to have ordered the closure of evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. For the reasons noticed above, it is apparent that it was clearly impermissible for the learned Trial Court to have declined leave to the plaintiff-petitioner to recall Naval Kishore PW by noticing that the case had, in the meantime, come to be fixed for evidence of the defendant- respondent. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 3.6.2009 shall stand set aside. The plaintiff-petitioner is directed to produce Naval Kishore PW on 21.10.2010 for being cross-examined. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be afforded to the plaintiff for the purpose aforementioned. In the light of the conclusion of substantive testimony of PW Naval Kishore, defendant-respondent shall be entitled to examine any other witness, if he is so inclined. Disposed of accordingly. January 8, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 3991 of 2009 -3- ****