CR No.1293 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1293 of 2010 Date of Decision : 25.2.2010 Manjit Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. Albel Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.D.S.Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 16.1.2010 passed by learned trial Court whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `CPC') for recalling of PW Navdeep Gupta for his cross-examination on the ground that the petitioner could not cross-examine the witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witness. It is submitted that learned Court below has dismissed the application only on the ground that the petitioner is inclined to delay the proceedings and by allowing the application, it would amount to recalling its own order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the available record. As per record, on 9.4.2009 Navdeep Gupta was present in Court but he was not cross-examined and the case was adjourned to CR No.1293 of 2010 -2- 9.5.2009 subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs. On 9.5.2009 Navdeep Gupta was again present but he was not cross-examined by the petitioner nor cost of Rs.500/- was paid, therefore, the Court had ordered that cross- examination of the said witness has been treated as Nil. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case in which interference of the Court is called for by the petitioner, who has failed to avail the opportunity which was provided subject to costs nor he had challenged the order dated 9.5.2009, if he was at all aggrieved against the same. Hence, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 25.2.2010 Judge Meenu