IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5343 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 3, 2011. Gurlal Singh Grewal. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Mata Gurmail Kaur Charitable Trust(Regd.) and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S.Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 19.07.2011, Annexure P7 passed by learned trial Court vide which request of present petitioner-plaintiff to re-examine Satinder Pal Bhandari as a witness, was declined. CR No.5343 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, petitioner-plaintiff had summoned an official of respondent- defendant no.1, Mata Gurmail Kaur Charitable Trust alongwith relevant record. Satinder Pal Bhandari was summoned as the official of abovesaid Trust. He appeared in the court and made statement before the court on 26.02.2009 that the record is not in his custody hence, he was discharged by learned trial Court. Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of petitioner-plaintiff for re-examining him, which was declined by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that there is mistake on the part of lawyer of petitioner-plaintiff in mentioning in the application that the witness is to be re-examined and that rather he was not even examined and cross-examined. He has further contended that he is a material witness and that he is one of the attesting witnesses of trust deeds in dispute, Annexures P8 and P9 and that hence, he is a necessary witness to be examined. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent that prayer was not made for examination of this witness as a necessary witness and that rather prayer was only made for re-examination and that hence, the application is misconceived and the same was rightly dismissed by learned trial Court. 2 CR No.5343 of 2010 Satinder Pal Bhandari is one of the attesting witnesses of trust deeds, Annexure P8 and P9 and hence, he is a necessary witness to be examined. Case is still at the stage of evidence of petitioner-plaintiff Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-plaintiff to examine this witness and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 19.07.2010 is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff to examine Satinder Pal Bhandari at his own responsibility by taking Dasti summons subject to payment of `10,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 3, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3