RESHAM SINGH Vs. MILKHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the plaintiff who is respondent in the present petition filed an application for recalling the plaintiff himself (who had earlier appeared as PW-4) to prove the averment made in the plaint that was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The said application has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28.2.1997 which has been impugned in the present petition. The other grievance raised by Mr. Khurana, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the application itself has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and in terms of the said order the learned Court can recall any witness who has been examined and may put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit but in the present case the plaintiff has been permitted to examine himself afresh by way of additional evidence.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that since the application itself had been filed for recalling the plaintiff, the learned trial Court erred in permitting the plaintiff to examine himself for further evidence. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.2.1997 passed by the learned trial Court is modified and the learned trial Court is directed to recall the witness and put such question to him as the Court thinks fit in terms of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. I have been informed by the learned counsel of the respondent that the learned Court had already recorded the additional evidence of the plaintiff. In view of the order pased today, I direct that the additional evidence, if any, of the plaintiff already recorded, shall not be read at the time of arguments. With this direction the petition stands disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 6.4.1998.