CR No. 2643 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.5.2009 Civil Revision No. 2643 of 2009 (O&M) Parminder K. Kumar .. Petitioner v. Pardeep Kumar Bhanot and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 26.3.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for re-calling DW1- Pardeep Kumar for further cross-examination, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery in lieu of dowry articles given after settlement of marriage, i.e., at the time of Shagun ceremony to respondent No. 1, in which evidence of respondent No.1- Pardeep Kumar (DW1) was recorded on 7.4.2008 and he was cross- examined as well. The application for re-calling DW1 for further cross- examination having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that application for re-calling DW1- Pardeep Kumar for further cross-examination was filed because the photographs and VCD prepared at the time of Shagun ceremony could not be put to the witness, as that time it was not traceable. The same contains the details of Shagun and jewellery articles given at that time, which would crystalise the case set up by the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned court below should have permitted re-calling of DW1-Pardeep Kumar for further cross- examination in the interest of justice. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is a kind of luxury litigation. The petitioner is residing in USA. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20.11.1991. In fact, they had separated vide decree of divorce passed by the Court on 14.6.1999. Suit for recovery of Rs. 4,50,000/- in lieu of dowry articles given after CR No. 2643 of 2009 [2] settlement of marriage, i.e., at the time of Shagun ceremony was filed in the year 2003. All the issues between the parties are normally settled at the time of divorce. The evidence of DW1-Pardeep Kumar was recorded on 7.4.2008. He was sought to be re-called for further cross-examination to confront him with the photographs/VCD prepared at the time of performance of Shagun ceremony. The reason being given for the same is that at the time of cross-examination of DW1- Pardeep Kumar, the same was not traceable. The same, in my opinion, cannot be a justifiable reason for permitting re-calling of a witness, who had already been cross-examined. The suit, which was filed nearly 4 years after the divorce for recovery in lieu of dowry articles given at the time of Shagun ceremony is still pending. The evidence, which is now sought to be put to DW1-Pardeep Kumar in his cross-examination after re-calling, was the basic thing which was required to be proved by the petitioner-plaintiff in her evidence. The effort of the petitioner- plaintiff to re-call respondent-DW1 Pardeep Kumar for further cross-examination is to fill in the lacuna in the evidence already led by her, which cannot be permitted in these proceedings. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.5.2009 mk