IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6676-CII of 2009 and CR No.1294 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.3.2009. Puran Chand ......Petitioner Versus Jamuna Devi ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.6676-CII of 2009 This application is not pressed. Dismissed as not pressed. CR No.1294 of 2009 This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar whereby application filed by the plaintiff for recalling the witnesses namely Jamuna Devi and Vasdev, has been dismissed. Challenging the aforesaid order, counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner has vehemently argued that on 12.11.2008, the aforesaid witnesses were present and the petitioner was also present in Court. However, when the case was called, the petitioner had gone to call his counsel and in the meantime, the Court passed the order and recorded that an opportunity for cross-examination has been granted which was not availed and it was recorded Nil. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid averments, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and the trial Court acted in haste and has not granted full opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and therefore, his application as such ought to have been CM No.6676-CII of 2009 and CR No.1294 of 2009 -2- allowed and the witnesses should be ordered to be recalled for further cross-examination. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no merit in this revision petition. Undisputedly, presence of Sh. Rajesh Nanda Advocate, who had appeared for the plaintiff- petitioner, has been marked in the case. It is neither the case of the petitioner or his counsel that the presence of Sh. Rajesh Nanda, Advocate, has been wrongly marked nor there is any averment on the record to show that the aforesaid counsel for the petitioner ever made an effort to move any application before the trial Court for deleting his name from the presence- sheet. In view of the aforesaid, the ground taken by the petitioner is not supported from the record and this Court is not inclined to accept the version of the petitioner. Dismissed. March 23, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE