Civil Revision No. 6225 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6225 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.01.2009 Namo ...Petitioner Versus Manjit Singh etc. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. S.S.Chandi, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The following facts are conceded and are, even otherwise, apparent from a perusal of the impugned order itself:- Mst. Gindo, one of the defendants, had been summoned (as a witness) by the plaintiff-respondent in his affirmative evidence. However, Mst. Gindo was not examined by the plaintiff-respondent. Thereafter, the defendants-petitioners closed the evidence. In rebuttal thereof, the plaintiff-respondent again summoned Mst. Gindo (one of the defendants) as a witness. On a report that she had refused to accept service, the Court issued bailable warrants against that witness. The defendant-petitioner is in revision against the order under challenge. It can be inferred from the impugned order itself that Civil Revision No. 6225 of 2008 -2- **** summoning of Mst. Gindo, as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent, had been allowed by the Court. By the very nature of things, if that plea had not been allowed, the Court would not have ordered the summoning of Mst. Gindo (who was otherwise one of the defendants in the suit). In its own discretion, the plaintiff-respondent did not examine Mst. Gindo. In that view of things, the plaintiff-respondent cannot be allowed to summon Mst. Gindo in rebuttal evidence. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order is in valid and is ordered to be quashed. January 27, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge