KHARAITI LAL Vs. RADHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned order dated 16.1.2012, the application filed by the defendant- petitioner for re-summoning the plaintiff's witnesses Anil Kumar (PW 1), Manoj Kumar (PW 2) and Anirudh (PW 3) for further crossexamination, has been dismissed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint regarding defendant- petitioner having demanded a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac more as earnest money and, as such, on his request it was typed at the back of the agreement but later on the defendant changed his mind and did not sign the same. Counsel has further submitted that the defendant- petitioner is required to suggest to the witnesses that there has not been any demand of Rs. 1 lac or changing of mind, refusing to append the signatures below the writing of Rs. 1.00 lac. He has further submitted that it has to be suggested to the witnesses that the agreement of sale, sought to be executed on 15.5.2006, is a forged and fabricated document.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the cross-examination of the witnesses, it appears that there is no requirement for the witnesses to be re-summoned for any crossexamination. The assertions in the examination-in-chief have already been suggested to be wrong by the earlier counsel for the defendant- petitioner. Besides this, a writing, which is sought to be denied is an unsigned writing at the back of the agreement of sale. It will always be open to the trial court to determine its authenticity and validity. Besides this, the defendant has led the evidence. Unless until there is any extra ordinary exceptional circumstance warranting the witnesses of the plaintiff as a general rule, the said witnesses cannot be permitted to be re-summoned at a belated stage on the ground that the witnesses are required to be recalled for cross-examination to elicit truth by way of further cross- examination. No ground is made out for interference.