Civil Revision No.4799 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4799 of 2011 Date of Decision:10.08.2011 Chander Kala ......Petitioner Versus The Inderprastha Cooperative House Building Society Limited and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in this revision petition and emanating from the record, is that Smt.Chander Kala widow of Zorawar Singh- petitioner-plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against The Inderprastha Cooperative House Building Society Limited and others- respondent-defendants(for brevity “the defendants”), for a decree of declaration and mandatory injunction. Having framed the essential issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court slated the case for evidence of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff, inter alia, produced many witnesses, including PW5- Virender Kumar Sharma. During the pendency of the suit, she(plaintiff) filed an application, for re-summoning/re-examining Virender Kumar Sharma-PW5, on the ground that as he has left some ambiguity in his cross-examination, therefore, he be re-summoned for re-examination, to remove the same in his statement. 3. The defendants resisted the prayer of the plaintiff, filed reply and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff, by means of Civil Revision No.4799 of 2011 2 impugned order dated 18.07.2011. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the petitioner- plaintiff preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 7. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the re- examination of witness(PW5), is essential to remove the ambiguity in his statement, so, the trial Court committed a legal mistake, in dismissing the application of the petitioner-plaintiff, lacks merit. 8. As is evident from the record that, the petitioner has sought re- summoning/re-examination of PW5, mainly, on the ground for removing the discrepancies in his statement. To me, legally no witness can be re-summoned for re-examination, to remove the ambiguity/discrepancy in his statement. It is not a matter of dispute that Virender Kumar Sharma appeared as PW5. His statement was completely recorded and cross-examined by the counsel for the parties. What are the specific reasons and discrepancies in the statement of PW5, are totally lacking in this respect. The trial Court appears to have rightly dismissed the application of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned order dated 18.07.2011, which in substance is, as under:- “In the case in hand, no such ambiguity is on the file but only for a reason that PW5 Virender Kumar, who support of the case of the plaintiff, application for his re-examination has been moved. There is also one more purpose to move an application for re-examination of PW5 that plaintiff wants to deprive the benefits of cross examination of the other side and wants to pressurize the witness to give evidence in his favour so that the question answered by PW5 in cross-examination should be nugatory.” 9. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the valid grounds in Civil Revision No.4799 of 2011 3 the impugned order in this relevant connection. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order dated 18.07.2011 deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. August 10, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.4799 of 2011 4