This judgment dismisses a revision petition seeking to set aside the lower court's order rejecting an application to re-summon the plaintiff. The court held that given the extended cross-examination, recalling the witness was unnecessary.
Revision petition dismissed; order setting aside the lower court's decision refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 1473 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.3.2010
Sarain Singh
... .Petitioner
Versus
Kulvinder Singh
... Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAJESH BINDAL, J
Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside of order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for re-summoning the respondent/plaintiff for further crossexamination has been dismissed.
It is not disputed in the present case that the respondent/plaintiff though initially filed suit through special power of attorney Sh. Nirmal Singh but subsequently himself had appeared in the court in support of the claim, as PW1. He was even cross-examined by the counsel for petitioner/defendant. An application was filed for re-examining him for further cross-examination on the ground that certain questions regarding the power of attorney holder were required to be put to him which could not be done as the power of attorney holder was not there. Learned Court below dismissed the prayer holding that the plaintiff when himself appeared as PW1 was cross-examined in detail by the counsel for the petitioner/defendant on April 23, 2008. Thereafter the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on November 15, 2008 and the case was fixed for petitioner's/defendant's evidence. However, in spite of four effective adjournments no evidence was led and ultimately the application was filed for resummoning the plaintiff.
Considering stage of the case and also that the respondent/plaintiff had already been cross-examined at length there is no need for recalling him for further cross-examination for putting him some questions regarding the power of attorney holder merely because a suit initially was filed through power of attorney holder.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
5.3.2010 Reema
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of dismissal of application filed by petitioner/defendant for re-summoning respondent/plaintiff requires to be set aside?
Sarain Singh
Kulvinder Singh
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
