C.R. No.5487 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - ******* IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5487 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:30.08.2010. Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Surjeet Singh @ Gurjeet Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dabwali whereby plaintiff's evidence has been ordered to be closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit No.1380 of 26.12.2005 titled as `Gurmeet Singh Vs. Surjeet Singh @ Gurjeet Singh and others' and his mother Harbans Kaur filed Civil Suit No.160 of 2006 titled as 'Harbans Kaur Vs. Surjeet Singh alias Gurjant Singh', both for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of 50/8247 shares out of total land measuring 412 Kanals 07 Marlas C.R. No.5487 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - ******* and that the act of the revenue authorities of bifurcating the Khewat No.79 into new other Khewat Nos.83 and 84 is without any notice to the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. He has further submitted that both the suits were clubbed by the learned Trial Court. The evidence was being recorded in Civil Suit No.1380 of 26.12.2005 titled as 'Gurmeet Singh vs. Surjeet Singh @ Gurjeet Singh and others'. In this suit, he has already been examined as his own witness as PW1. On 09.06.2010, after examination of the plaintiff/petitioner was over, the case was adjourned to 11.08.2010 for examination of other witnesses on his own responsibility. Before the date fixed, an application was filed by the petitioner for examining Smt. Harbans Kaur (plaintiff in the other suit) as a witness, but the said application was dismissed on the ground that interest of the petitioner and that of Harbans Kaur is the same and, therefore, she is not required to be examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court, at this stage, has erred in exercising its jurisdiction in declining the said application on the ground that the said witness is not required to be examined by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the learned Trial Court has no jurisdiction to observe that which witness is material for the plaintiff to be examined in support of his case specially when the witness sought to be examined is the plaintiff herself. It is also submitted that the next date of hearing before the C.R. No.5487 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - ******* learned Trial Court is 31.08.2010. Without issuing notice to the respondents, I am of the view that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure P-1) is liable to be set aside. I order accordingly. The petitioner is permitted to examine Harbans Kaur as his witness on 31.08.2010, the date already fixed before the learned Trial Court. This revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Order dasti. August 30, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE