Civil Revision No.5670 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-7.9.2010 Satya Devi widow and Usha Rani d/o late Ram Lal ...Petitioners Versus Jaswant Rai and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.S.S.Chopra Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Concisely, the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Jaswant Rai son of Daulat Ram respondent No.1-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of recovery, inter-alia, pleading that Ram Lal (since deceased, being represented by his LRs) had borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lacs on 26.3.2006 and executed the pronote and receipt in his favour. The defendants-LRs of Ram Lal denied the execution of pronote and receipt and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 2. The plaintiff, in order to substantiate his claim, appeared as PW2 as his own witness and produced the other evidence. He was duly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendants. 3. The defendants No.1 & 5 moved an application (Annexure P1) under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for recalling PW2 for further cross-examination on the ground that some material questions with regard to the source of money, inadvertently could not be asked to him at the relevant time. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, they filed the application for recalling PW2 for further cross- examination. 4. The plaintiff contested the application, filed the reply (Annexure P2) and prayed for its dismissal. 5. Taking into consideration the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the application (Annexure P1), by virtue of impugned order dated Civil Revision No.5670 of 2010 2 14.8.2010 (Annexure P3). 6. The petitioner-defendants No.1 and 5 did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and filed the present revision petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, there is no merit in the revision petition. 8. As is evident from the record that PW2 Jaswant Rai has already appeared as his own witness and was cross-examined at length by the defendants. Once a witness has been duly cross-examined, then he cannot be re-summoned for further cross-examination in a routine manner on the ground that he was not effectively cross-examined. 9. In this manner, the trial Court has recorded the valid reasons for dismissing the application (Annexure P1) for recalling PW2, vide impugned order (Annexure P3). Such order cannot possibly be interfered with, in exercise of extraordinary limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 7.9.2010 Judge AS