MOHINDER SINGH Vs. SURINDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for possession by way of ejectment from the premises in dispute and for recovery of rent and mesne profits for use and occupation of the disputed premises was filed by the plaintiff-respondents against the defendant-petitioner and defendant-respondents. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the defendants under Order XVIII Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved against the said order of the trial Court, this revision petition has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner under Section 115 of the Code.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Manohar Dadwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the records of the case.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court reveals that earlier, a similar application under Order XVIII Rule 17-A of the Code was filed by the defendants on the same allegations on which the. present one has been moved and the same was declined by the trial Court vide detailed order dated 10.11.1999. On this ground alone, this revision petition deserves dismissal. It may also be stated here that the plaintiff-respondents closed their evidence on 9.3.1996 and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants. The defendants have not been able to conclude their evidence by availing several opportunities spanning over a period of more than three and a half years. Davinder Kumar (P.W.4) was cross-examined by the defendants after three and a half years. The trial Court rightly declined to summon the said witness for cross examination. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the case cited by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner i.e. Rudreswar Dihinglia v. Pundu Mura, L.J.R. (Civil) 1950 to 1988, 243 wherein it was held that the Court can be exercising inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code can recall a witness at any stage for the purpose of re-cross-examination or re-examination, is not of any help to the petitioner. It cannot be disputed that before passing an order for recalling a witness, the Court must be satisfied and accordingly record reasons that it is necessary to do so for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court. The exercise of such power will vary from case to case. As stated above, in the present case, the trial Court, while declining the prayer of the defendant-petitioner for recalling Davinder Kumar (P.W.4) for re-cross-examination, has recorded cogent and sufficient reasons.