C.R. No. 5758 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5758 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 23, 2009 Ranjit Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. Jagir Kaur and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order may be read in continuation with the earlier order dated October 7, 2009. Today, counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the further cross-examination of DW1 Upkar Singh wherein the cross- examination of the witness has been deferred directing the witness to find the photograph of Joginder Singh after he refused to identify Joginder Singh C.R. No. 5758 of 2009 [2] and Ranjit Kaur in photograph of marriage Ex.P-20. He also refused to recognize Joginder Singh in photograph Ex.P21. He admitted that Joginder Singh is his real maternal uncle but stated that photograph of Joginder Singh might be lying in the house. When the Court had, in said circumstances, deferred the cross-examination, directing the witness to find the photographs of Joginder Singh, there was no obstacle in permitting the petitioner to display the video cassette to confront him the factum that father of said witness had performed ‘milni’ with father of the plaintiff. While passing the impugned order dated August 24, 2009, the trial Court observed that counsel for the applicant had failed to convince the Court what facts were sought to be proved by confronting the contents of the video cassette to the witness. It is made clear that the controversy in the suit pertains to establishment of relationship and as per Section 50 of the Evidence Act, when a Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact. Besides this, the video cassette if permitted to be played on a laptop in the Court, it will only permit the Court to examine the worthiness and credibility of the witness. This petition is disposed of by setting aside the order dated August 24, 2009 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking permission to put the relevant parts of the video cassette to the witness Upkar Singh. It is made clear that the trial Court will consider the C.R. No. 5758 of 2009 [3] said application in context to its relevancy as per the Evidence Act to establish the relationship or in context to the relevancy under Section 136 and 146 of the Evidence Act. It is made clear that this Court has opted to dispose of the revision petition in limine in view of the fact that the cross- examination of DW1 Upkar Singh is still continuing and has not been concluded as stated at Bar by counsel for the petitioner. It is made clear that in case the cross-examination of Upkar Singh has already been concluded, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. October 23, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE