IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.458 of 2008 Date of decision: February 18, 2008. Prem Chand ...Petitioner(s) v. Om Parkash & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 14.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib whereby an application moved by the petitioner – plaintiff to recall the defendants' witnesses for their further cross examination, has been declined. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, respondents No.1 and 4 have been served through their father whereas respondent No.5 has also been duly served, however, no one appears on their behalf. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioner – plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she, along with the respondent – defendants, is joint owner in possession of the subject land. It appears that in the civil suit, the respondent-defendants propounded a Will dated 12.7.1996 allegedly executed by Hukami Ram in their favour. The petitioner's suit was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved, she preferred an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar vide his judgment dated 23.8.2007 whereby, after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, the case was remanded for a fresh adjudication with a direction that a specific issue with regard to “the execution of the will dated 2.7.1996 by Hukami Ram in favour of the defendants” be framed and parties be given opportunities to lead their respective evidence on this issue. After the remand, it appears that Learned Counsel for the respondent – defendants has made a statement that he does not want to lead other evidence in support of the above noticed additional issue, namely, execution of the alleged Will by Hukami Ram in their favour. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner – plaintiff has sought recalling of the respondent – defendants' witness for their further cross examination on the additional issue. Since the respondent-defendants' witnesses, when they appeared earlier, were not cross examined by the petitioner – plaintiff regarding the execution of the alleged Will as no such issue was framed at that time, the plaintiff is entitled to recall them for their further cross examination in support of the additional issue now framed by the trial court in the terms of the judgment dated 23.8.2007 passed by the first appellate court, referred to above. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P-4) is set aside and the learned trial court is directed to recall the respondent – defendants' witnesses so as to permit the petitioner – plaintiff to cross examine them on the additional issue. Dasti on usual charges. February 18, 2008 [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge