KAMALPREET SINGH @ HAPPY Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendants no.5 and 6 have assailed order dated 04.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 12.05.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana.

(2.) VIDE order Annexure P-1, the trial court treated the cross- examination of respondent no.1-plaintiff Satish Kumar (PW-1) as 'Nil' on behalf of the petitioners, whereas vide order Annexure P-3, the trial court dismissed the application (Annexure P-2) moved by defendants no.5 and 6/petitioners for recall of order Annexure P-1.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contended that counsel for the petitioners in the lower court was unwell on 04.11.2011 when order Annexure P-1 was passed, and therefore, he went away after making request for adjournment to the trial court and later on, when the case was taken by the trial court, impugned order (Annexure P-1) was passed. It was also pointed out that counsel for respondent no.1-plaintiff made statement, as reproduced at page-8 of the paper-book, that he had no objection to recall of order Annexure P-1, subject to payment of heavy costs, but in spite thereof, application (Annexure P-2) moved by defendants no.5 and 6 for recall of order Annexure P-1 has been dismissed by the trial court vide order Annexure P-3.