RA No.143-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No. 5836 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Review Application no.143-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No. 5836 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.10.2011 Satyawati Sood @ Satya Sood .... Petitioner Versus Rakesh Sood ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Munish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the non-applicant. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Rakesh Sood has brought this review application with a prayer to re-call the order dated 23.09.2011 passed by this court in Civil Revision No. 5836 of 2011, vide which revision petition brought by Satyawati Sood @ Satya Sood has been allowed. The petitioner was leading her evidence in civil suit brought against her by Rakesh Sood for a specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 27.08.1994. She had applied for supplementing her examination in chief, already recorded by way of affidavit, by filing a RA No.143-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No. 5836 of 2011 --2-- supplementary affidavit. The said prayer of Satyawati Sood @ Satya Sood had been declined by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide order dated 21.07.2011. On a challenge to the said order by way of the aforesaid civil revision, the said order was set aside without giving notice to Rakesh Sood. I have heard Shri R.S. Manhas, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Munish Kumar Singla, learned counsel for the non- applicant and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the petitioner had made a wrong statement before the court by stating that the cross-examination of the petitioner was yet to commence. According to him, the cross-examination had commenced and had been conducted on two dates but the same was yet to be concluded. According to him, filing of supplementary affidavit by her would just prolong the matter. The application for permission to file supplementary affidavit had been filed on 10.01.2009 and it has been decided after a long lapse of time on 21.07.2011. Although, the cross-examination of Satyawati Sood @ Satya Sood had commenced at the time of filing the application, yet the same was not concluded and, therefore, it was not wrong to say that she was yet to be cross-examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was misstatement of fact before this court on the part of the petitioner-non applicant. RA No.143-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No. 5836 of 2011 --3-- However, the file reveals that the suit is pending for the last more than a decade and it would be in the interest of justice, if the trial court takes extra care to decide the same as early as possible by taking it up on day to day basis, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations, I find no merit in this review application and consequently dismiss the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 19.10.2011 JUDGE dinesh