impugned agreement. Thus, the defendant now wants to set up a new case which cannot be permitted. On the contrary, the agreement purports to bear thumb impression and not signatures of the defendant. The alleged statement made by Kulwinder Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been placed on record of the trial Court. Consequently, it cannot be said as to what has been stated by Kulwinder Singh (PW2) in the said statement. Moreover, Kulwinder Singh (PW2) in the witness box, in the instant suit, has stated about due execution of the agreement by the defendant and witnessed by him and he has already been cross-examined. If the said witness now, apparently at the instance of defendant, has allegedly changed his statement in his alleged statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it cannot be a ground for recalling the witness. On the other hand, the said witness has turned hostile to the plaintiff because the witness has since left the job of the plaintiff. It may also be added that the aforesaid FIR lodged by the defendant has since been quashed by this Court, as submitted by learned counsel for the parties, although according to counsel for the respondent, the said FIR was quashed on technical ground of being time barred.
