VINOD KUMAR Vs. MANGAL SAIN GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dismissal of application of tenant Vinod Kumar, petitioner herein (for short, the tenant) for recalling of landlord Mangal Sain Grover, respondent herein (for short, the landlord) for his further cross-examination as PW1, forms genesis of this revision petition.

(2.) A petition for eviction of the tenant is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana since 8.9.2007. The landlord has been examined as PW1 in his evidence. The tenant wants to conduct further cross-examination on the landlord, claiming, that his consultation with his new lawyer has awakened him to the alleged gaps left in the crossexamination of the landlord which may result in rendering his crossexamination ineffective. Citing Om Prakash Versus Sarupa and others, 1981 AIR(P&H) 157, it is claimed by counsel for the tenant that a party should not be allowed to suffer for a lapse on the part of his counsel. Support has also been sought from Muthukaruppan @ Velayutham Versus Suresh @ Muthukaruppan, 2000 1 RCR(Civ) 655and Herbert Irwin Pereira Versus Rudolph Pereira and others, 2010 2 BCR 824 .

(3.) Citing K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy, 2011 2 RCR(Civ) 875 , it has been urged that the court can always permit fresh evidence if evidence was relevant to render justice. It is urged that though power is discretionary but should be used in appropriate cases where evidence is necessary. Referring to provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, it is urged that though this provision is to enable the court to clarify any issue or doubt by recalling any witness yet invocation of this provision can be made even at the request of any party.