Civil Revision No. 6901 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6901 of 2009 Date of decision : 8.1.2010 Jagtar Singh .....Petitioner Versus Santa Singh etc. ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.S.Manaise, Advocate for the respondent No.1 S. D. ANAND, J. One Resham Singh, Numberdar, was examined as a witness of the defendant-petitioner. After his statement had been recorded, the plaintiff-respondents filed an application dated 7.9.2009 for recall of Resham Singh PW. The averment, in support of the application, was that certain pertinent questions could not be put to the witness inadvertently. In that context, it was also averred that the witness aforementioned had to be confronted with the contents of an affidavit of his which was otherwise already available on the judicial file. The plea, for recall of witness, was negatived by the learned Trial Judge, vide order dated 12.10.2009. It is common ground that the order aforementioned has attained finality, as it never ever came to be challenged till date. It was thereafter that the plaintiff-respondents filed a plea for additional evidence for proving the above indicated affidavit of Resham Singh. The plea, raised in support thereof, was that availability of that affidavit on file was not to his notice at the time the earlier plea for the recall of witness aforementioned was filed. Civil Revision No. 6901 of 2009 -2- **** The learned Trial Court allowed the application, though it noticed that the circumstances available did not indicate how exactly affidavit found its way to the file. It observed that the bringing on record of that affidavit, “through evidence of competent witness shall be material and in the interest of justice.” The defendant is in revision against the order dated 6.11.2009. The petition deserves allowance for the reasons noticed hereunder:- It is apparent from Annexure P-1 that a plea filed by the plaintiff-respondents for the recall of Resham Singh PW had been declined by the learned Trial Judge, vide order dated 12.10.2009 and that order has attained finality for want of challenge till date. In that view of things, the achievement of that very purpose, by means of a plea additional evidence, could just not have been entertained. Even if that affidavit is proved by the attesting Oath Commissioner etc., the plaintiff-respondents would not be able to make any use of the contents thereof because deponent/maker thereof had already been examined and a plea for his recall had been disallowed vide order dated 12.10.2009. In the absence of thast witness, it would not be possible for the plaintiffs-respondents to confront him with the contents thereof. In that view of things, the plaintiff-respondents would not be able to achieve what had been declined to them vide order dated 12.10.2009 which (order) remains unchallenged till date. The petition shall stand allowed, The impugned order dated 6.11.2009 shall stand set aside. January 8, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No