Civil Revision No. 2734 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2734 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.11.2009 Bhajan Singh ....Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 21842-CII of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed, order dated 9.9.2009 is recalled and the revision is restored to its original number. CR No. 2734 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for summoning the plaintiff for further cross-examination, stands declined. It has been averred in the application that the plaintiff be recalled as the defendant/petitioner could not ask some material question to the said witness due to which the plaintiff is required to be recalled for further cross-examination. Civil Revision No. 2734 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Application was contested, wherein it was pleaded that the evidence of the defendant was closed by order, but thereafter on revision defendant was granted one opportunity to conclude his entire evidence. Stand was also taken that the application was mala fide with an intention to prolong the litigation. The learned Court found that there was no merit in the application. The learned Court also noticed that issues in the case were framed on 28.8.2003, and the plaintiff concluded his evidence, thereafter petitioner availed five opportunities but failed to adduce the evidence and his evidence was ordered to be closed on 7.11.2005. As already observed above, the petitioner was granted one opportunity to conclude his entire evidence, by this Court. The learned Court also found that PW1 Pawan Kumar plaintiff was subjected to lengthy cross-examination and the petitioner had remained silent thereafter till filing of present application. The application was said to be vague and unspecific, as nothing was mentioned in the application as to what were the material questions, which were required to be asked to the plaintiff and how these questions were relevant for decision of the case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained, as during the evidence of the defendant/petitioner, he was allowed to amend the written statement and an additional issue was thereafter framed, the onus of which was on the defendant/petitioner, therefore, the necessity arose to recall the plaintiff for further cross- examination. Civil Revision No. 2734 of 2009 (O&M) -3- This contention seems to be in air as the learned counsel for the petitioner has neither pointed out issue on which the plaintiff was required to be called. Furthermore, onus of proof of additional evidence was on the defendant/petitioner, it can, therefore, be hardly a reason to recall the plaintiff for further cross-examination. This contention otherwise has no merit, as the only ground taken in the application was, that some material questions could not be asked. It is well settled law, that merely because certain material questions are not asked to a witness, cannot be a ground to recall a witness. No fault can be found with the order passed. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge November 12, 2009 R.S.