Civil Revision No.1468 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1468 of 2009 Date of Decision:18.03.2009 Darshan Singh ....petitioner Versus Sukhdev Singh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Manish Kumar Singla,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is defendant's revision challenging the order dated 25.02.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Sunam, whereby his application for recalling the witness i.e.PW2 Surnesh Kumar, has been dismissed. It has been averred in the revision petition that respondent filed a suit for recovery against the petitioner alleging therein that petitioner borrowed Rs.3 lacs from the respondent in the presence of Surnesh Kumar and Leela Singh at the shop of Surnesh Kumar and on asking of Surnesh Kumar a writing was also made which was scribed by Surnesh Kumar and witnessed by Leela Singh. The petitioner filed written statement denying execution of any such receipt in favour of respondent and further alleged in the written statement that the same was the result of fraud played by respondent in connivance with commission agent Surnesh Kumar and witness Leela Singh etc. Civil Revision No.1468 of 2009 2 It is further averred in the revision petition that the respondent appeared as PW1 and during his cross-examination admitted that Surnesh Kumar is his commission agent and he further stated that he had brought Rs.3 lacs from his house which was of the crop which he had sold at the shop of Surnesh Kumar, in the month of October, 2001. Further, Surnesh Kumar had appeared as PW2 and during his cross- examination he had admitted that he runs the shop in the name of M/s Hari Chand Ved Parkash and plaintiff and defendant used to sell their crop at his shop. He also admitted that he maintains account books regarding the selling of crops by the farmers. He further stated that he cannot tell orally that how much amount he had given to the plaintiff-respondent in Hari 2001 and in Sauni 2001 and he can tell this only after seeing the record, which he can produce. Thus, the petitioner moved an application dated 09.04.2007 for recalling PW2 Surnesh Kumar and to get produced the record from him as he did not produce the record during his cross-examination. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondent and was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that recalling of the witness was very much necessary for the just decision of the case and the Court had ample powers to examine any witness at any stage and the Court may recall any witness at any stage of the suit. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for acceptance of the revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order wherein it has been mentioned that at the time of cross-examination of the witness no such request for production of the record was made on behalf of the petitioner. The Court also found that this application was nothing but a dilatory tactics as the record to be produced Civil Revision No.1468 of 2009 3 by the aforesaid witness was not relevant for the decision of the suit of recovery of the plaintiff from respondent. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 18.03.2009 neenu