Civil Revision No.6894 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6894 of 2009
Date of Decision: 26.11.2009
Ranjit Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Punjab Financial Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr.Ramandeep Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Vinod K.Sharma, J. (Oral)
This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon dismissing an application moved by
the petitioner for recalling the witness.
The petitioners sought to reexamine the witness of the
defendant on the plea that the defendant has not been cross-examined
properly, on some points and therefore, for proper adjudication of the case it
was necessary to recall the witness.
Learned Trial Court found that the witness sought to be recalled
Civil Revision No.6894 of 2009 2
was cross-examined at length by Mr.Naveen Kumar Gupta, Advocate and
the application was moved merely because of change of counsel.
Mr.Ramandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners relied
upon the judgment of Hon’ble Mdras High Court in the case of Krishnaveni
& Ors. Vs. Gopal Pandithar 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 190 to contend that a
witness can be recalled if the counsel had omitted to put some vital
questions to the defence witnesses if the said omission is bona fide.
In the case of Krishnaveni & Ors. Vs. Gopal Pandithar
(supra) Hon’ble Madras High Court had declined to interfere with the
exercise of jurisdiction by the court in allowing application to recall of
witness for want of cross-examination on vital questions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Division
Bench judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s National
Agro-Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. National Research Development
Corporation 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 98 to contend that in an applicat5ion
under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling a
witness for further cross-examination the questions to be put are not
required to be disclosed as the very purpose of cross-examination would
stand defeated.
Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras
High Court in the case of Muthukaruppan @ Velayutham Vs. Suresh @
Muthukaruppan 2000 (1) RCR (Civil) 655 to contend that the witnesses
can be recalled for cross-examination when the counsel withdraws from the
case and the new counsel finds that some material questions were omitted to
Civil Revision No.6894 of 2009 3
be asked. In that case again the court had declined to interfere with the
exercise of discretion by the learned trial court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners finally placed reliance on
the judgment of this court in the case Paramjit Kaur and Ors. Vs.
Gurjant Singh & Ors. 2000 (4) RCR (Civil) 647 wherein this court was
pleased to allow recalling of witness for cross-examination when cross-
examination of witness was left out by mistake. This Court in Paramjit
Kaur and Ors. Vs. Gurjant Singh & Ors. (supra) was pleased to lay
down as under:-
“9. Learned trial Court rightly held that it was on account
of inadvertent mistake that PW-6 could not be cross-
examined and therefore, the learned Court below rightly
exercised inherent jurisdiction vested in it by recalling the
said witness for cross-examination so that his evidence
could be read in evidence.
Xx xx xx
11. I have considered this argument also and find that the
evidence of PW-6 has already been led and he has to be
cross-examined by the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be
said that the evidence in affirmative is being reopened or
any additional evidence is being led. However, in case any
evidence comes during the cross-examination which may
entitle the petitioners to rebut the said evidence, then it is
always open to the petitioners to move appropriate
Civil Revision No.6894 of 2009 4application which has to be considered by the Court in
accordance with law.
Finding no merit in the present civil revision,
the same is, accordingly, dismissed.”
On consideration of matter I find no force in the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The judgments relied upon by the petitioners have no relevance
to the facts of the present case as the application was moved merely to fill
up lacunae on account of change of counsel without even disclosing as to
which stand of the plaintiff/petitioner could not be put to the witness, during
lengthy cross-examination.
This Court in Surjit Kaur and another Vs. Pritam Singh
and others 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 402 has been pleased to lay down that a
party is not permitted to re-examine any witness to fill up lacunae in the
case. The provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code only enable the court
to clear any doubt which may arise. Para 10 of the said judgment reads a
sunder:
“10. Under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code
it is only the requirement of the Court that it 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. The said
language does not permit a party to re-examine any witness
to fill up the lacuna in his case. The said provision is only
Civil Revision No.6894 of 2009 5with a view to enable the court to clear any doubts which
may arise with regard to the earlier statement of the said
witness.”
It is also well settled law that a witness cannot be recalled for
further cross-examination merely because certain questions were left to be
asked unless the questions were material questions going to root of the
matter and were necessary for proper adjudication of the case.
The provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code are meant for
advancement of justice and not for the party to reopen the case or fill up
lacunae in the evidence. Exercise of discretion by the learned trial court,
therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious so as to call for
interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
No merit.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K.Sharma)
26.11.2009 Judge
rp