ATMA SINGH Vs. BHUPINDERPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Atma Singh and Pawan Kumar, who are Respondents No. 8 and 10 in the trial court, have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 22.10.2010 (Armexure P-l) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, thereby partly allowing application moved by Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein (Applicants before the trial court) for additional evidence

(2.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - Code of Civil Procedure), for taking action against Petitioners and proforma Respondents No. 3 to 10 herein for disobedience of temporary injunction order dated 22.12.2004. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have alleged in their petition that affidavit regarding temporary injunction was submitted in the office of Sub-Registrar (Petitioner No. 1 herein) before lunch on 22.12.2004, but in spite thereof, sale deed was registered at 04:45 P.M. However, stand of the Petitioners and proforma Respondents No. 3 to 10 is that the said affidavit was furnished in the office of Sub Registrar at 04:55 P.M. i.e. after registration of the sale deed.

(3.) The parties led their evidence in support of their respective versions. Even arguments were concluded. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of the alleged contemners for production of original record containing the original affidavit, although copy of the affidavit was already on record of the trial court. Pursuant thereto, original affidavit was produced in the trial court. It was thereafter that Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein moved application for examining Mr. Dilshad Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate and Mr. Davinderpal Singh Bhola, Advocate (Notary) as witnesses and also for recalling Petitioner No. 1 herein for further crossexamination. The said application has been partly allowed by the trial court by impugned order Annexure P-l, thereby permitting Respondents No. 1 and 2 to examine Mr. Dilshad Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate and Mr. Davinderpal Singh Bhola, Advocate (Notary) as witnesses, but prayer to recall Petitioner No. 1 for further cross-examination has not been allowed. Feeling aggrieved, the instatnt revision petition has been preferred by the Petitioners, who are Respondents No. 8 and !0 in the trial court.