VINOD KUMAR Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Kumar defendant no.2 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka thereby partly allowing application Annexure P-1 moved by respondent no.1-plaintiff for recalling the plaintiff for further examination and cross-examination.

(2.) THE plaintiff alleged that some important questions were omitted in his examination-in-chief by his counsel, for which he is required to re-enter the witness-box. It was also alleged that cross-examination of the plaintiff as witness was deferred on request of counsel for the defendants and later on, evidence of the plaintiff was closed without recording remaining cross-examination of the plaintiff, and therefore, further cross-examination of the plaintiff is also required to be conducted. THE defendants, in the reply, opposed the application. It was denied that cross-examination of the plaintiff was deferred on request of counsel for the defendants. It was alleged that the plaintiff himself abstained from his cross-examination.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the plaintiff himself did not appear for his remaining cross-examination in spite of many opportunities. The contention merits summary rejection. On pointed inquiry, counsel for the petitioner failed to refer to any such averment in the instant revision petition or to any material on record to substantiate the same. On the other hand, perusal of the impugned order reveals that examination-in-chief of the plaintiff was recorded on 26.09.2009 and his cross-examination was deferred by the trial court on account of Lok Adalat. The plaintiff again appeared in the witness-box on 01.12.2009 for purpose of cross-examination. He was partly cross-examined, but his further cross-examination was deferred on request of counsel for the defendants, who wanted to peruse some receipts. Thereafter, plaintiff's counsel inadvertently closed the plaintiff's evidence without recording of further cross-examination of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, trial court has rightly permitted completion of remaining cross-examination of the plaintiff. Part cross-examination of the plaintiff was deferred on request of counsel for the defendants. In spite thereof, in their reply Annexure P-2, the defendants wrongly pleaded that the cross-examination was not deferred on the request of their counsel. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the plaintiff entered the witness-box and made statement of examination-in-chief. His cross-examination was deferred by the trial court on account of Lok Adalat. The plaintiff again entered the witness-box for his cross-examination. He was partly cross-examined, but his remaining cross-examination was deferred on request of counsel for defendants himself. Consequently, application of plaintiff has been rightly allowed partly for completion of his remaining cross-examination. There is no error, much less illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court in permitting the plaintiff to appear for his remaining cross-examination.