IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 652 of 2010 (O&M) Dated of Decision: February 1, 2010 Amar Nath. …Petitioner Versus Smt. Hardeep Kaur and another. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. The petitioner herein is a respondent in a plea for ejectment filed by the respondents. His examination-in-chief was recorded by the learned Rent Controller on 21.02.2009 and the recording of his cross-examination was deferred. On the adjourned date, the petitioner herein could not appear on account of old age and illness and the learned Rent Controller proceeded to close the evidence of the petitioner herein. In revision, however, the order was set aside by a Coordinate Bench (K.Kannan, J.) of this Court, vide order dated 17.03.2009 in Civil Revision No. 1441 of 2009 and the petitioner herein was directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 19.03.2009 and subject himself for cross examination. On that date, the petitioner herein made the following statement:- C.R. No. 652 of 2010 “RW3 Sh. Amar Nath recalled for cross examination on S.A. I am hard to hearing and I am also not in sound and disposing mind.” Sd/- Sd/- Amar Nath Rent Controller, In Urdu 19.3.2009.” The matter was adjourned thereafter for recording of rebuttal arguments and evidence. It was thereafter that the respondent herein applied for the recall of the petitioner herein for cross-examination. The plea was allowed by the learned Rent Controller by noticing the circumstances under which the cross- examination could not be conducted upon the witness aforementioned. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein having been once cross-examined, there was no justification for his recall for the purpose aforementioned. The plea merely deserves to be noticed to be discarded. The reasons therefor are as under:- On 19.03.2009, the petitioner herein did not allow the cross-examination to be conducted by telling the Court that he was hard of hearing and that he was also not in a sound and disposing mind. It cannot, thus, be said that the 2 C.R. No. 652 of 2010 petitioner herein had been subjected to cross-examination. If a witness pleads inability to respond to the questions in the witness box and the Court adjourns the proceedings, it cannot be said that the witness had been subjected to cross- examination. Of course, it would have been appropriate for the learned Rent Controller to have noticed the disability on the part of the petitioner herein to face cross-examination and, then, adjourned the proceedings for the purpose aforementioned. In fact, the learned Rent Controller has tried to rectify that error on his part by allowing the recall of the petitioner herein for cross-examination. Examined from another angle, it may be noticed that if the impugned order directing the recall of the petitioner herein for cross-examination is not affirmed, it would be a case where his statement would be considered as substantive evidence, without his having been subjected to cross- examination. That would be grossly unfair to the respondents herein. After having disabled the party opposite from cross- examining him in the above manner, the petitioner herein cannot be heard to apply for the invalidation of the impugned order which directs his recall to the witness box for cross- examination. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. February 1, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3 C.R. No. 652 of 2010 4