Civil Revision No. 470 of 2009(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 470 of 2009(O & M) Date of decision 28.1.2009 Naib Singh .....Appellant versus Harjit Singh and another .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The revision petition is against an order dismissing the plea made on behalf of the defendant for recall of witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 of cross-examination along with the plaintiff who had been examined as PW-4. 2. The Court which dismissed the petition had pointed out that the conduct of the defendant on 15.11.2007, when the witnesses PW-2 and PW- 3 were present in Court. The defendant flatly refused to cross-examine them and insisted that unless PW-4 was also available for cross- examination, he would not commence the cross-examination. Court in such a situation passed an order as follows:- “Pws Jaspal Singh and Gurwinder Singh are present to face cross examination Sh. S. S. Saggu, counsel for defendant No.1 requested for a date. He was appraised that chief examination of witnesses have been recorded on 12.10.2006 and after that case is being adjourned for evidence. Now witnesses are present and they be cross examined. At this Sh. S. S. Saggu, counsel for defendant no.1 stated that cross examination of these witnesses be deferred as plaintiff is not present. PW-2 Jaspal Singh and PW-3 Gurwinder Singh are present and Civil Revision No. 470 of 2009(O & M) -2- plaintiff Harjit Singh is recorded as PW-4. So witnesses are to be cross examined in that order. Therefore, request of counsel for defendant No.1 for deferring the cross examination present witnesses is declined. PW-2 Jaspal Singh and PW-3 Gurwinder Singh are present but counsel for defendant No.1 did not cross examine the witnesses. So cross examination on these witnesses by defendant No.1 is treated as NIL. Sh. Mahesh Goayl Advocate, Court Guardian for defendant No.2 is present and he cross-examined the present witnesses. To come up on 20.2.2008 for remaining entire evidence of plaintiff.” 3. It can be seen that the defendant was in some sense defiant and refused to cross-examine the witnesses when they were present. Now it is contended before me that PW-4 was the plaintiff and he was bound to be examined first before other witnesses and no leave of the Court had been taken under Order 18 Rule 3A CPC. If that was the objection the petition itself must have been for eshewal of evidence of PW-4 itself. The matter of accommodating parties and witnesses and allotting time for cross examination is essentially a matter of management of time by a Presiding Officer and subject only to reasonable convenience of parties. The counsel cannot have a final say as to how the Court shall arrange its work. If the Court directs cross-examination to be done when the witnesses were present and a counsel does not avail of an opportunity and be defiant in his stand that unless the witnesses were brought on the same day, he cannot undertake the cross-examination, he has to stand by the consequence of such conduct. When the Court treated the cross-examination of the witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 as NIL and posted the matter for 20.2.2008 for remaining entire evidence of plaintiff, it was passing an order within its powers. It is one Civil Revision No. 470 of 2009(O & M) -3- thing to state that he shall permit to cross-examine PW-4, quite another to say that he shall be again granted permission to PW-2 and PW-3. The petition filed by him is not for cross examination of the plaintiff only but for cross examination of two other witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. The rejection of such a request is a matter of discretion which the lower Court has exercised on the basis of materials and setting out reasons, including the conduct of the defendant. 4. While it may be possible for making such inference as the law would admit for non-examination of the plaintiff before other witnesses, the defendant cannot seek for permission for examination of witnesses PW- 2 and PW-3 which have been denied already. 5. The civil revision petition is disposed of on the above terms. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 28.01.2009 A. KAUNDAL