IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7252 of 2009 Date of decision : December 09, 2009 Harish Chand Gera ....Petitioner versus Pooja Devi and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. NS Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant No. 2 Harish Chand Gera has filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 24.11.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari (Annexure P/1), whereby application moved by the petitioner for recall of Jagat Parshad (PW3) for cross-examination has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that Jagat Parshad PW3 was examined on 12.3.2009 but his part cross-examination was deferred on request of counsel for the defendants to confront the witness with some original documents which were to be summoned. The case was adjourned to 30.4.2009. However, no such record was summoned for 30.4.2009 by Civil Revision No. 7252 of 2009 -2 the defendants. Jagat Parshad PW3 was present on 30.4.2009 for his remaining cross-examination. On application moved by defendants for summoning the record, the case was adjourned to 19.8.2009 and the record was ordered to be summoned for the said date. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 19.8.2009, witness with summoned record was present but Jagat Parshad PW3 did not come present for his further cross- examination and therefore, evidence of the plaintiff was closed by court order vide order dated 19.8.2009 (Annexure P/4). However, perusal of order Annexure P/4 reveals that even witness of the defendants with record was not present in the court on that date. The trial court has, therefore, rightly observed that the defendants failed to produce the original records although two opportunities were granted for summoning said record. In addition to the aforesaid on 19.8.2009 after closing the evidence of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 by court order, trial court adjourned the case to 31.8.2009 for evidence of the defendants. The defendants availed of four effective opportunities for their evidence and it was on the 4th date of hearing fixed for their evidence that the application in question was moved for recall of Jagat Parshad PW3 for cross-examination. Evidently that was not the stage for moving application for summoning Jagat Parshad PW3 for cross-examination. It appears that the application in question was moved only to gain time because the defendants had not led their entire evidence in spite of four opportunities. The application has, therefore, been rightly dismissed by the trial court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. Civil Revision No. 7252 of 2009 -3- In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine, being devoid of any merit. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 09, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'