Puran Chand vs Jamuna Devi on 23 March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                     CM No.6676-CII of 2009 and
                                     CR No.1294 of 2009
                                     Date of decision: 23.3.2009.

Puran Chand                                       ......Petitioner
                               Versus

Jamuna Devi                                       ......Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

* * *

Present: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * *

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)

CM No.6676-CII of 2009

This application is not pressed.

Dismissed as not pressed.

CR No.1294 of 2009

This is plaintiff’s revision petition challenging the order dated

21.1.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar whereby

application filed by the plaintiff for recalling the witnesses namely Jamuna

Devi and Vasdev, has been dismissed.

Challenging the aforesaid order, counsel for the plaintiff-

petitioner has vehemently argued that on 12.11.2008, the aforesaid

witnesses were present and the petitioner was also present in Court.

However, when the case was called, the petitioner had gone to call his

counsel and in the meantime, the Court passed the order and recorded

that an opportunity for cross-examination has been granted which was not

availed and it was recorded Nil. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid

averments, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there

was no fault on the part of the petitioner and the trial Court acted in haste

and has not granted full opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the

witnesses and therefore, his application as such ought to have been
CM No.6676-CII of 2009 and
CR No.1294 of 2009 -2-

allowed and the witnesses should be ordered to be recalled for further

cross-examination.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

I find no merit in this revision petition. Undisputedly, presence

of Sh. Rajesh Nanda Advocate, who had appeared for the plaintiff-

petitioner, has been marked in the case. It is neither the case of the

petitioner or his counsel that the presence of Sh. Rajesh Nanda, Advocate,

has been wrongly marked nor there is any averment on the record to show

that the aforesaid counsel for the petitioner ever made an effort to move

any application before the trial Court for deleting his name from the

presence- sheet.

In view of the aforesaid, the ground taken by the petitioner is

not supported from the record and this Court is not inclined to accept the

version of the petitioner.

Dismissed.

March 23, 2009                             (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps                                                JUDGE