CR No. 3452 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 3452 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.5.2011. Rajesh Chopra .......Petitioner Vs. Anil Kumar and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Manish Prabhaker, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 1 to comply with the terms of the settlement orally arrived at between the parties on 3.6.2008. Now the suit is fixed for final arguments. At this stage, an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for allowing the plaintiff to recall Naresh Kumar as a witness to prove the original agreement to sell dated 20.4.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time when the plaintiff had led his evidence, the original agreement to sell in question was not in his possession. Now the plaintiff was in possession of the agreement to sell dated 20.4.2008 and in order to prove the due execution of the same, it was very essential for the plaintiff to examine Naresh Kumar, attesting witness of the agreement to sell dated 20.4.2008. CR No. 3452 of 2011 (O&M) -2- After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Plaintiff closed his evidence on 6.1.2011. The witness, now sought to be examined by the plaintiff, is defendant No.2. The plaintiff cannot force the defendant to appear in the witness box to prove his case. Now the case is listed for arguments and it appears that the application had been merely filed to delay the proceedings. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 24, 2011 Gurpreet