Civil Revision No. 939 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 939 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2011 K.K. Prabhakaran ......petitioner Versus M/s Hero Exports and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.K.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff M/s Hero Exports has filed a suit for recovery. Plaintiff examined PW-2 V.K.Gandatora. The said witness was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants. An application was filed for recalling PW-2 for further cross-examination. Vide impugned order dated 6.1.2011, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, the present petition has been filed by defendant No.3 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that PW-2 had been put various questions during cross-examination but he had given evasive replies to the questions put to him. The trial Civil Revision No. 939 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Court should have intervened and made the witness given precise answers in view of the High Court Rules and Orders. Moreover, the party could not be allowed to suffer on account of any lapse on the part of the counsel. The Court had the power to suo motu re-call a witness for the just decision of the case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Pantham Brahmam vs. Gollipalli Swaminaidu , 1998 (1) Civ.C.C.84 and Shera vs. Asha Ram 1987 (1) PLR 463. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. In the present case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery. The plaintiff examined PW-2, V.K. Gandatora, in support of its case. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the examination-in chief of PW-2 was concluded on 6.9.2010 and the case was adjourned to 14.9.2010 for his cross-examination. On the said date the witness was present but the counsel for the petitioner was not available and the case was adjourned for cross-examination of PW-2 and for examination of PW Amarpreet Singh to 24.9.2010. On the adjourned date PW-2 sent a request for adjournment. Thereafter, on 6.10.2010 PW-2 was cross-examined at length. On the same day an application was moved by the counsel for the petitioner for adjourning the case for further cross-examination of PW-2 and to allow the applicant to file a transfer application. A perusal of the impugned order further reveals that on 6.10.2010 the Civil Revision No. 939 of 2011 (O&M) 3 counsel for the petitioner had himself stopped the further cross- examination and the application had been filed just to delay the proceedings. Annexure P-2 is the cross-examination of PW-2. A perusal of the same reveals that witness has been cross-examined at length. It appears that the application for recalling PW-2 for further cross-examination has been filed with a view to delay the case. Although the counsel for the defendant had averred that he wanted to file a transfer application but it appears that no such application was filed. Apparently, the said request was not a genuine one. Hence, there is no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts. In these circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 09, 2011 anita