ABHEY RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF-Abhey Ram by way of instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged order dated 3.2.2012 Annexure P-6 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh thereby dismissing the application (Annexure P-4) moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for recall of Harjit Singh DW-1 for further cross- examination.

(2.) PLAINTIFF-petitioner alleged in the application Annexure P-4 that plaintiff moved application Annexure P-2 for summoning the record in rebuttal evidence so as to rebut the evidence of the defendants but the defendants by reply Annexure P-3 stated that the record stood destroyed on expiry of prescribed period. Thereafter plaintiff moved application Annexure P-4 for recalling Harjit Singh DW1 to clarify as to how in absence of record, he made statement. Defendants opposed the application by filing reply Annexure P-5. Trial Court vide order Annexure P-6 dismissed the plaintiff's application Annexure P-4. PLAINTIFF has, therefore, filed this revision petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that Harjit Singh DW-1 is required to be recalled to clarify as to how he made statement in the witness box if the record stood destroyed. However, the witness should have been cross-examined on this aspect while the plaintiff was cross- examining the witness. At that stage the relevant record should have been summoned and everything would have been clear. The clock now cannot be set back. The witness was cross-examined at length. He has also made statement on the basis of the record as is clear from cross- examination Annexure P-1. Consequently, at the mere asking of the plaintiff, the aforesaid witness cannot be recalled to fill up the lacunas, if any, in the case of the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff's application Annexure P-4 has rightly been dismissed by the trial Court. There is no infirmity muchless perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.