JUDGMENT
Sat Pal, J.
1. This petition has been directed against the order dated 17.10.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Dabwali. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has allowed an application filed by the defendants for summoning one Chanan Ram Petition Writer for further cross-examination.
2. Mr. Goyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the application was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. for summoning of this witness and under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C., even if an application is allowed, the witness can be examined only by the Court and can not be cross-examined by the other side. In support of his submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Smt. Sudha Rani v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1980 R.L.R. 663.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order, I however do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court. It is true that as per heading of the application filed by the defendants, it has been stated that this application is under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. for summoning of Chanan Ram, Petition Writer but the prayer of the application clearly shows that the said witness was required to be summoned for further cross-examination by the defendants. It is only a typographical mistake of nomenclature of the provisions of the law and keeping in view the prayer clause, I am of the opinion that in fact this application has been filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. and even the impugned order itself shows that the application was under Order Rule 17-A C.P.C. and not under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. As regards the maintainability of the application, I am of the opinion that such a prayer can be allowed in the interest of justice and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case the application has been correctly allowed by the trial Court. The view I have taken finds full support from a judgment of this Court in Shera v. Asha Ram, (1987-1)91 P.L.R. 463. This judgment has relied on an earlier decision of this Court in Om Parkash v. Sarupa, A.I.R. 1981 Punjab & Haryana 157.
4. The decision in the case of Sudha Rani (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that ! case the application was made under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 but in the present case, as stated herein above, though the provisions have not been correctly stated in the application but the contents of the application clearly shows that this application in fact was under Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C.
5. For the reasons recorded herein above, the petition is dismissed.