High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pritam Lal vs Smt. Kailash Rani & Another on 12 August, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritam Lal vs Smt. Kailash Rani & Another on 12 August, 2009
C.R. No. 1330 of 2009                                                        1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
              CHANDIGARH

                              C.R. No. 1330 of 2009 (O&M)
                              Date of Decision : 12.8.2009

Pritam Lal
                                                          .......... Petitioner
                              Versus

Smt. Kailash Rani & another
                                                          ...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

Present :    Mr. T.N. Sarup, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Malkeet Singh , Advocate
             for respondent No.1.

             Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

                  ****

VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

19.1.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn.), Batala vide which

application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure for summoning Parbhat Bhushan Sharma as a witness has been

declined.

The case set up by the petitioner is that Parbhat Bhushan

Sharma son of defendant No.1 was summoned through Court. In pursuance

to the summons issued by the Court he appeared and filed his affidavit in

examination-in-chief, however, his cross-examination was deferred.

Subsequently, in spit e of number of opportunities having been given he did
C.R. No. 1330 of 2009 2

not appear in Court. The petitioner, therefore, moved an application to recall

the witness for cross-examination.

In view of the fact that Parbhat Bhushan Sharma, has not

submitted himself for cross-examination his evidence cannot be taken into

consideration, and the affidavit filed by him in examination-in-chief is to be

ignored.

Shri Parbhat Bhushan Sharma, therefore, can not be considered

to be a witness, as his examination-in-chief can not be read.

There is no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure or

Evidence Act, under which, the opposite party can be directed to produce a

witness which he is unwilling to produce or examine.

The dismissal of the application moved by the petitioner,

therefore, does not suffer from any illegality which may call for interference

by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

No merit.

Dismissed.

12.8.2009                                        ( VINOD K. SHARMA )
  'sp'                                                JUDGE