Civil Revision No. 4189 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4189 of 2011 Date of Decision: 13.07.2011 *** Jiwan Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Patras & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. P.S. Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with order dated 13.5.2011 by virtue of which the request of respondents-defendants to re-examine Court witness namely Tarlochan Singh, has been allowed. The aforesaid Court witness was appointed as Local Commissioner on the application moved by the plaintiff, who consequently gave his report. Certain objections were filed against his report by the respondents-defendants. The aforesaid Local Commissioner appeared as a Court witness and cross-examined by the respondents. However, after his cross-examination the learned counsel for the petitioner also cross-examined him. Thereafter, the respondents again made a request for re-examination of this witness, which has been allowed by dint of the impugned order dated 13.5.2011. Dis-satisfying with the same instant revision petition has been filed. Heard. It is evident from the records that it were respondents who were aggrieved with the report of the Local Commissioner, but despite that after conducting of the cross-examination by them, the petitioner-plaintiff also cross-examined this witness seeking some clarifications with regard to certain discrepancies, thereby taking the respondents with surprise about the said alleged clarifications and this necessitated the respondents to seek permission for re-examination of the Court witness. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by ordering for re-examination of the Court Civil Revision No. 4189 of 2011 2 witness there is violation of order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC, is not sustainable because there is no bar in the provisions ibid that the Commission can only be summoned by the party who is aggrieved with his report and can be summoned by any of the parties. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) July 13, 2011 JUDGE Jiten