BEGA AND ORS. Vs. BIR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the defendants raised an objection about examination of Sunder Singh Patwari when he appeared to give evidence on 8.8.2007 on the ground that he had already been examined on 10.1.2007 and, thus, cannot be examined again. The plaintiffs' counsel, however, pointed out that the evidence of the witness could not be recorded on 10.1.2007 as he was in possession of a record which was in Urdu and the witness had stated that he was unable to read the record. This, according to the counsel for the plaintiffs, would not be in evidence which can be termed as examination of a witness to debar the witness from being examined again. The trial court noted the version of the witness stated on 10.1.2007 and found that the witness had not deposed anything and as such was to be deferred, but could not be so recorded inadvertently. Finding this to be a technical mistake, the witness, who had come present with the record, was permitted to be examined.

(2.) THIS order has been impugned through the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the case of Kans Raj and Anr. v. Salig Ram Tandon, 1977(2) R.L.R. 851 to contend that unless an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is filed, the witnesses could not have been examined once again.

(3.) I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners on merits. The trial court has observed that the examination of the witness was to be deferred but it could not be so recorded inadvertently. It is, thus, observed that this was a technical mistake of which the petitioners are trying to take advantage. When the testimony of PW -1 as recorded on 10.1.2007 is perused, it will be found that virtually he has not given any evidence on the said date. Just to appreciate this aspect, his entire examination -in -chief is re -produced below: