C.R. No. 497 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 497 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 30, 2009 Sukhmander Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Santa Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Sukhmander Singh-defendant No.2 before the trial Court has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated January 8, 2009 dismissing the application of the petitioner to re-summon DW6 Harbaksh Singh, hand-writing expert which was examined by defendant No.1. While dismissing the application for re- summoning DW6 examined by defendant No.1, the trial Court observed as follows:- C.R. No. 497 of 2009 [2] “I have heard the rival contentions of counsel for both the parties and gone through the file carefully. The present suit was filed on 10.3.98 and defendant No.1 Surjit Kaur filed her written statement. Defendant No.3 Sarwan Singh also filed his separate written statement. However, on 2.11.98 Sh.B.S. Rajput, Advocate, on behalf of defendant No.2/ applicant made statement that this defendant does not want to file a separate written statement and the written statement filed by defendant No.1 also treated as on behalf of defendant No.2. The witness DW6 who is an Expert has been examined by defendant No.1 who was not cross-examined by learned counsel for plaintiff as well as by defendant No.3 inspite of granting opportunity to them. No party can be allowed to travel beyond his pleading. Pleading i.e. written statement of defendants No.1 and 2 are same. Hence defendant No.2/ applicant cannot be allowed to cross-examine the witness of defendant No.1. Keeping in view above detailed discussion, I find no merit in the application and the same stands dismissed.” A perusal of the above observations indicates that a joint written statement has been filed by the petitioner (defendant No.2) and defendant No.1. DW6 is an expert witness examined by defendant No.1. C.R. No. 497 of 2009 [3] The said witness was not cross-examined by counsel for the plaintiff as well as defendant No.3. A perusal of the memo of parties of the civil suit filed by Santa Singh, plaintiff - respondent No.1 indicates that Surjit Kaur daughter of Dalip Singh is impleaded as defendant No.1 whereas the petitioner has been impleaded as defendant No.2 in his individual capacity as well as general attorney for defendant No.1. In view of the above circumstances, the application of petitioner- defendant No.2 to re-summon DW6 hand-writing and finger print expert for cross-examination by defendant No.2- petitioner seems to be not maintainable. It is pertinent to observe her that in the impugned order it has been specifically noticed that the petitioner has not filed any independent written statement and counsel for the petitioner by appearing in the trial Court on November 2, 1998 has adopted the written statement field by defendant No.1. There does not appear to be any reasonable justification for defendant No.2 to cross-examine the witness produced by defendant No.1 when both of them have filed a joint written statement and their interests apparently does not clash. It has been argued that the earlier counsel engaged by the petitioner had made a wrong statement before the trial Court. It will not be appropriate for this Court to examine the conduct of counsel for the petitioner. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to avail any other legal remedy available to him to put-forth his claim before the trial Court in accordance with law. C.R. No. 497 of 2009 [4] July 30, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE