CR No. 5210 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 21660-CII of 2009 and CR No. 5210 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.9.2009 Badri Ram ....Petitioner. Versus Mahinder Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. SPS Tinna, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 21660-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 5210 of 2009 In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant-petitioner, the challenge is to the order dated 5.8.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by him under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) for recalling PW2-Balbir Singh for further cross-examination, was dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the file. The trial court while declining the aforesaid application of CR No. 5210 of 2009 -2- the defendant-petitioner had recorded as under:- “After hearing arguments and going through the file, I find that it is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant/defendant that on 1.9.2008 during the cross-examination of defendant Badri Ram the plaintiff for the first time produced the cheque No. 407598 which was not produced earlier along with the plaint so this fact could not be put to PW2 Balbir Singh who is the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. PW2 Balbir Singh was cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendant thoroughly. It is settled law that no witness can be recalled to fill up the omissions in the evidence of a witness left behind. So, no case is made out for re-calling of the witness of the plaintiff, namely, Balbir Singh. The application is without any merit, hence the same is hereby declined.” To appreciate the controversy properly, it would be advantageous to reproduce the statutory provision here. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code reads thus:- “17. Court may recall and examine witness.- The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.” From the perusal of the extract of the order of the trial CR No. 5210 of 2009 -3- court, reproduced above, it reveals that the trial court after examining the evidence on record came to the conclusion that no ground for recalling the witness of the plaintiff (PW2-Balbir Singh) for his further cross-examination was made out especially when he had already been cross-examined thoroughly by the defendant. Moreover, from the plain reading of the provisions contained in Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code also, it is clear that the application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as it is the discretion of the court only to recall any witness who has been examined and subject to the law of evidence may put such questions to him as it thinks fit. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that no ground for exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Therefore, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed. September 11, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE