Civil Revision No. 4297 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4297 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.08.2010 Sajjan Singh ....Petitioner Versus Kapoor Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose off Civil Revision No.4297 of 2009 titled Sajjan Singh Vs. Kapoor Singh and others, Civil Revision No.4421 of 2009 titled Gurvinder Singh Vs. Gurbax Singh and another, and Civil Revision No.4422 of 2009 titled Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Gursharan Singh and others, as common questions of law and facts are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.4297 of 2009 titled Sajjan Singh Vs. Kapoor Singh and others. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 26.5.2009, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for summoning the record through witnesses under Order 16 Civil Revision No. 4297 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands dismissed. In order to effectively cross-examine the witnesses being examined by the plaintiff/respondents, petitioner moved an application for summoning the following files: - “(a) File Gurbax Singh vs. Gurvinder Singh pending in this Hon'ble Court and now fixed for 4.8.04. (b) File Gurcharan Singh Vs. Sukhwinder Singh pending in this Hon'ble Court for 19.8.04. (c) Suresh Kumar, Deed Writer, Nabha at the time of his examination alongwith register dated 28.5.1999 and 14.6.1999. (d) Randhir Singh, stamp vendor, Nabha alongwith register dated 28.5.99 and 14.5.99. (e) Witness Gulshan Kumar with Bahi Khata, Roka register from 1987 onwards qua the sale proceeds and other accounts of defendant and his sons Gurvinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh at the shop of Ashok Kumar and Ram Parkash, Commission Agents, Gulwatti/Grain Market, Nabha. (f) Witness Ram Parkash also with the record of the firm Ashok Kumar Ram Kumar, Commission Agents fully mentioned in para (e) above.” The case set up by the petitioner was, that the above record was essential for effective cross-examination of the witnesses being examined by the plaintiff/respondents. The learned trial Court keeping in view the fact that one of the Civil Revision No. 4297 of 2009 (O&M) -3- witnesses, who was called to produce the record i.e. Gulshan Kumar had appeared in the Court in another case and had made statement that he was no longer in the service of the commission agent firm, the record of which was summoned. The learned trial Court held, that Gulshan Kumar could not be directed to produce the summoned record, as he was no longer employed with the firm. The learned Court further held, that the person who was not in possession of the record could not be directed to produce the record. No illegality can be found with the order passed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court was justified in rejecting the plea of the petitioner for directing Gulshan Kumar to produce the record, for want of record being in his possession. The learned trial Court has given no reasons, as to why the other record and the witnesses summoned were not summoned. In view of the reasons stated above, while upholding the order of the learned trial Court in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for directing Gulshan Kumar to produce the record, the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court to decide the application afresh, and take decision on the other witnesses and the record summoned by the petitioner. Parties through their counsel are directed to be present before the learned trial Court on the date fixed i.e. 6.9.2010. Revision disposed off. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 09, 2010 R.S.