Civil Revision No. 1684 of 2007 -1-
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1684 of 2007
Date of decision: 1.05.2009.
Ajit Singh
Petitioner
Versus
Piar Kaur and others
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate for the
respondents No.3,4 and 6.
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
The facts, as apparent from the impugned order itself, in
the first instance:-
The plaintiff-petitioner never ever entered into witness
box. His affidavit ( in lieu of the purported examination-in-chief) was
tendered by the learned counsel representing him. The trial
proceeded and the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner came
to be closed by his learned counsel vide his statement dated
12.5.2006. It was subsequently on 1.8.2006 that the plaintiff-
petitioner applied for the leave of the Court to enter the witness box
for cross-examination of the party opposite. It is that plea of the
plaintiff-petitioner which was negatived by the learned Trial Court
vide impugned order dated 31.1.2007. The Court observed that the
Civil Revision No. 1684 of 2007 -2-
*****
recall of the plaintiff-petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination
was meaning less as there is no examination-in-chief itself of his
available on record. The view obtained was that the mere tendering
into evidence the affidavit of the plaintiff-petitioner by the learned
counsel representing him did not constitute the examination-in-chief.
As noticed by the learned Trial Court, the evidence of the
plaintiff-petitioner came to be closed by his own learned counsel by
making a statement. Further the plaintiff-petitioner never ever
entered the witness box for tendering his affidavit (in lieu of the
examination-in-chief) into evidence. The prayer made by the plaintiff-
petitioner before the learned Trial Court was only for his recall for
facing the cross-examination. So, there is no request for him to allow
his recall for making examination-in-chief or tendering his affidavit
into evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief. The matter has already
listed for the evidence of the party opposite.
Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
upon Paramjit Kaur and others Vs. Gurjant Singh and others
2006 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 646 is misconceived. In that case, the
examination-in-chief of the witness had indeed been recorded and it
is only his cross -examination which had been deferred. It is further
apparent from that judgment that witness in question was a
Handwriting Expert who stepped into witness box and tendered his
report (and the accompanying documents) into evidence. In the case
evidence of an Expert, it is matter of routine to grant adjournment for
the purpose of cross-examination. It was under this peculiar
Civil Revision No. 1684 of 2007 -3-
*****
circumstance that a Coordinate Bench (Vinod K. Sharma, J.) allowed
the recall of that witness because his cross-examination had been
left out by mistake. The facts of the case before this Court are
entirely different.
The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered
to be dismissed.
May 01, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge