SATNAM SINGH Vs. PHOOLA SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 16.10.2014, whereby application moved by the petitioner for permission to re-examine PW1-Mukhtiar Singh, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that PW1, in his examination-in-chief had supported the case of the petitioner. However, when PW1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants, he turned hostile. In these circumstances, it was very necessary for the petitioner to re-examine PW1. Learned counsel has further submitted that the application for re-examination of the witness, was moved on the same day and petitioner could not have sought re-examination of the witness without moving the said application. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) through LRs v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, 2009 2 RCR(Civ) 508, wherein it was held as under:-

(2.) Section 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("Act" for short) reads as under:-

(3.) In the present case, petitioner has filed suit for declaration. Petitioner examined PW1-Mukhtiar Singh attesting witness of the will dated 10.05.1993. In his cross-examination, PW1 turned hostile and denied the fact that he had attested the will executed by Pritam Singh. Thereafter, petitioner moved the application for recalling PW1. The learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner, as witness after his cross-examination, was discharged and at that stage, petitioner should have sought an opportunity to enable him to re-examine the witness as per Section 138 of the Act. I have gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the same fails to advance the case of the petitioner.