CR No. 4488 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. Nos. 16380-81-CII of 2008 and
CR No. 4488 of 2008
Date of Decision: 22.9.2009
Mrs. Bhullan @ Nimbo and another
....Petitioners.
Versus
Ranpat and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
C.M. Nos. 16380-81-CII of 2008
Allowed as prayed for.
C.R. No. 4488 of 2008
In this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India by the plaintiff-petitioners, the challenge is to the order dated
21.8.2009 passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by
them under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short
“the Code”) for recalling the office Kanungo to produce the complete
record (excerpts) of the suit land, was dismissed.
The trial court after examining the evidence came to the
conclusion that the plaintiffs had not specifically mentioned in the
CR No. 4488 of 2008 -2-
application as to which of the documents were to be produced by the
office Kanungo. The observations recorded by the trial court in para 8
of its order read thus:-
“8. First of all, the applicant-plaintiffs have not
specifically mentioned in the application, which
documents are to be produced by the office
Kanungo. The provision of order 18 rule 17 CPC
relating to recalling of witness for further cross-
examination, is merely an enabling provision for
convenience of Court. It does not permit a party to
re-examine any witness of fill the lacuna in the case.
When the said office Kanungo appeared before the
Court, the counsel for the applicant-plaintiff was very
much there to examine him in applicant-plaintiffs’
evidence but this fact has not been pointed out by
him at that time. Therefore, now, he cannot be
allowed to take shelters under order 18 rule 17 CPC.
The present case is the only oldest case of the year
2000. The parties have already taken more than
sufficient opportunities to conclude their evidence.
Thus, at the fag end of the trial, the applicant-
plaintiffs cannot be allowed to re-open the trial to fill
up the lacuna in their case. Reliance on this point
can be placed on the authority of Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court in case titled as Smt. Surinder
Kaur Vs. Karanbir Singh and another, AIR 2004
CR No. 4488 of 2008 -3-Punjab and Haryana 377.”
Further, Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code reads thus:-
“17. Court may recall and examine witness.- The
Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness
who has been examined and may subject to the law
of evidence for the time being in force put such
questions to him as the Court thinks fit.”
From the plain reading of the provisions contained in Order
18 Rule 17 of the Code also, it is clear that the application filed by the
petitioners was not maintainable as it is the discretion of the court to
recall any witness who has been examined and subject to the law of
evidence may put such questions to him as it thinks fit.
In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is no
illegality or perversity in the order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the trial
court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
September 22, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE