JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. This order will dispose of civil revision Nos. 2475 of 2476 of 1993. Both these revisions have been directed against the identical orders passed by the trial Court.
2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit challenging the decree dated 31.5.1984 passed by Sh. H.S. Gill, Sub Judge, Fatehabad in civil suit No. 254-C of 1984, titled Surain Singh v. Devinder Kumar inter-alia on the ground of fraud, mis-representation. The suit was resisted by the defendant-respondent. The plaintiff produced some evidence. Ultimately last opportunity was granted to the plaintiff for his evidence on 18.11.1992. On that day, the plaintiff examined himself besides another witness. The plaintiff as also one of his witness were duly cross-examined on behalf of the contesting defendant by Shri M.S. Chaudhary, Advocate. Thereafter, an application was moved by Shri Bhart Singh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff and his witness could not be effectively cross-examined on 18.11.1992 by Shri B.S. Chaudhary, Advocate and therefore, the two witnesses may be recalled for cross-examination as on the date, they appeared as witnesses, he was away to Baliali in connection with lunch hosted on occasion of marriage of Sh. Khamboj, Advocate.
3. The trial Court on a consideration of the matter allowed the application and permitted further cross-examination of the witnesses, who were examined on 18.11.1992. It is this order, which is under challenge at the instance of the plaintiff.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that Sh. M.S. Chaudhary was one of the Advocates appointed by the contesting defendant. The witnesses were properly cross-examined by Shri Chaudhary, Shri Chaudhary never asked for any adjournment and if he had made such prayer, the matter could have been considered by the trial Court. Learned counsel further submitted that if the witnesses had not been cross-examined at all, the situation might have been different. Once they have been cross-examined effectively, the trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that Shri Chaudhary could not cross-examine the witnesses on that day properly as Shri Bharat Singh Sharma. Advocate was not present in Court on account of reception party at the residence of Sh. Khamboj, Advocate and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is just and fair and no interference is called for while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the two witnesses who appeared in Court in 18.11.1992 has been properly cross-examined by Sh. M.S. Chaudhary, Advocate. Nothing could be brought to my notice which may show that Sh. Chaudhary requested for a date or that after recording of the evidence of the witnesses, their cross-examination be deferred so as to enable Mr. Sharma to cross-examine them. Once, the witnesses had been cross-examined, they could not be recalled for further cross-examination only on the ground that they had not been cross-examined effectively by the Advocate who cross-examined them on the date they put in appearance. If such type of ap plications are allowed and witnesses are permitted to be further cross-examined, it will open a flood gate of litigation and a party would be entitled to move such applications either by changing counsel or by simply saying that on the date the witnesses were cross-examined, a specific question could not be put to them or that they could not be cross-examined effectively. Under the provisions of the Code, it is always open to the Court to recall the witness in case there is an ambiguity in his statement or the Court is of the opinion that some clarification is required. But the present is not the case of such type. Such requirement is the requirement of the Court. In any case, it cannot be said as an absolute proposition of law that a witness can never be recalled, but, there has to be something more than mere wish of the defendant to further cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff as in the present case.
7. In view of the above, I am clearly of the opinion that the trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the application of the defendant for further cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff. These revisions petitions are consequently allowed and orders under revision are set aside, but with no order as to costs. ‘
8. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 2.12.1998 for further proceedings in accordance with law.