Civil Revision No.5194 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5194 of 2011 Date of Decision:29.08.2011 Kuldeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus M/s Baljit Singh Mohender Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that Kuldeep Singh son of Dalip Singh- petitioner-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against M/s Baljit Singh Mohender Singh, commission agents and other respondents-defendants(for short “the defendants”) for rendition of accounts. The suit was earlier pending in the court of Mahesh Kumar, the then Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Karnal, which was subsequently transferred to the transferee court. 2. The plaintiff moved an application to summon the defendant as his witness. The counsel for the defendant raised the objection in this respect. Then the question arose as to whether the plaintiff has a legal right to summon the defendant as his own witness or not? The trial Court negatived the plea and did not allow the plaintiff to summon the defendant as his witness, by means of impugned order dated 06.06.2011, which in substance is as under:- “It is settled principle of law that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and neither can take the benefit of the weaknesses of the defendant nor can take Civil Revision No.5194 of 2011 2 the benefit from him. It is quite settled that recalling of the witness already cross examined can be done but for the purpose of the just decision of the case but such witness cannot be recalled for the purposes of examining him in his chief examination. It was observed in Misri Lal vs. State of MP 2005 (10) Supreme Court, 703 para No.6 that witness who was examined in chief and cross examined fully, such witness should not be recalled and re- examined denying the evidence he has already given before the court. If the present request of the ld. counsel for the plaintiff is allowed, it would be that the defendant would be called and examined by the plaintiff and obviously since the interest of the defendant is involved, he being the defendant himself, would not be cross examined. It is not the request of the plaintiff that defendant has to be called only for the production of record. Further, it is the foremost duty of the plaintiff to prove his own case, he cannot take asylum of the court to prove whatsoever has been contended. Hence, request for summoning the defendant is disallowed. If plaintiff is interested in calling any other witness, he can produce his entire witnesses on 1.9.11. Last opportunity is granted and if the evidence is not concluded by the plaintiff on the date fixed, his evidence would be deemed to be closed.” 3. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, petitioner-plaintiff preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this regard. 5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the trial Court committed a mistake in declining the request of the plaintiff, for summoning the defendant as his witness, so, the impugned order is not maintainable, lacks merit. 6. Possibly, it cannot be denied that, the plaintiff is required to prove his case by producing independent cogent evidence and he cannot be permitted to prove his case by summoning the defendant as a witness in a casual fashion, unless so warranted by any grave and deep situation, which is totally lacking in the Civil Revision No.5194 of 2011 3 present case. The plaintiff cannot legally be permitted to summon the defendant as his(PW) witness in a routine manner, to prove his case. 7. Moreover, the trial Court has recorded the valid grounds in this relevant connection. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order dated 06.06.2011 is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. August 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5194 of 2011 4 C.M.No.20829-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5194 of 2011 Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. August 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE