C.R.No.973 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.973 of 2008. Decided on: November 19, 2009. Jugal Kishore and another .. Petitioners VERSUS Balwinder Kaur .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 04.02.2008, the application of the plaintiff-respondent to recall defendant Jugal Kishore who was earlier examined on 13.01.2002, has been allowed, on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent had passed certain instructions to his earlier counsel but the said counsel could not . . . 1 C.R.No.973 of 2008 cross-examine the defendant on all the facts and on the ground that many documents which were placed by the plaintiff on record subsequent to the examination of defendant could not be put to the defendant in cross-examination. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent having been asked as to what documents are required to be put to defendant, informs that certain documents which are already exhibited on the record and have been produced by the plaintiff while producing rebuttal evidence are required to be put to the defendant. He has submitted that there are certain documents on the record produced by the defendant which are also to be put to the defendant in cross- examination. After hearing the counsel for the plaintiff- respondent, I am of the opinion that the documents which have already been exhibited and produced on the record after completion of cross-examination of the defendant already formed part of the record and the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to take the benefit of the documents at the time of final adjudication of the case because the documents which have been produced on record after recording of statement of defendant can always be taken into consideration by the Court and these cannot be rejected solely on the ground that these were not put to the defendant in cross-examination especially when these were produced in rebuttal after the completion of the cross-examination. In view of above circumstances, the impugned order . . . 2 C.R.No.973 of 2008 dated 04.02.2008, permitting the recalling of the defendant to face the cross-examination after a gap of six years of completion of his examination, is not sustainable. It would unnecessarily prolong the litigation besides causing avoidable harassment to the defendant. The impugned order dated 04.02.2008, is hereby set aside. The trial Court will decide the case in accordance with law, expeditiously. Allowed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 19, 2009. rka . . . 3