C.R NO. 3064 OF 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R NO. 3064 OF 2010 (O & M) DECIDED ON : 11.05.2010 Sikander Singh and others ...Petitioners versus Godha Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is a revision petition against the order dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Faridkot, vide which the prayer of the plaintiff for describing the correct name in additional affidavit, was allowed. Godha Singh filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 31.10.2002 against Sikander Singh, Harjinder Singh and Harbans Kaur. According to the case of the plaintiff, the time for executing the sale deed was extended from 01.11.2003 to 01.11.2004 and all the defendants have signed/thumb marked that writing. In the initial affidavit, it is mentioned that Sikander Singh has scribed the writing for extension of period for execution of the agreement, whereas by C.R NO. 3064 OF 2010 (O & M) -2- way of additional affidavit, the plaintiff and another witness wants to mention that in fact the said writing was scribed by Harjinder Singh-defendant. The defendants are yet to cross- examine the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that criminal case regarding the said agreement is pending against the plaintiff and he would be prejudiced by allowing the said correction of deposition. It is further submitted that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to file the additional affidavit. I have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in the same. The Parliament in its wisdom has enacted Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall the witness at any stage of the suit. The plaintiffs simply want to add that defendant-Harjinder Singh has scribed the writing regarding extension of period of the agreement in stead of Sikander Singh. The defendant has the right to cross-examine the witness. It will not prejudice the criminal case pending in any way. So, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. MAY 11, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE