Gulzar Singh vs Lakhwinder Singh

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant Gulzar Singh (since deceased) through legal representative (L.R.) Baljit Kaur has filed this revision petition u/s 115 of the CPC (in short, ''CPC'') assailing order dated 28.03.1998 passed by the trial court dismissing application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for recalling plaintiff Lakhwinder Singh PW4 and Balbir Singh PW3 for further cross-examination with reference to alleged agreement to sell dated 11.08.1993 executed by one Satwant Singh in favour of plaintiff-respondent Lakhwinder Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the case file.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent by making statement in the trial court, allowed the photostat copy of the said agreement dated 11.08.1993 to be exhibited as Ex. D2 in evidence. Consequently, in view thereof, there was no necessity of recalling the aforesaid witnesses for their further cross-examination regarding the said agreement. On the other hand, the plaintiff has already admitted in his cross-examination that such an agreement had been executed, although the plaintiff was not confronted with the said agreement at that stage. However, since copy of the agreement has been exhibited in evidence as per statement made by counsel for the plaintiff, the application filed by petitioner for recalling the aforesaid two witnesses for further cross-examination regarding the said agreement has been rendered infructuous and redundant. Even otherwise, it may be added that respondent-plaintiff has since died and, therefore, the question of recalling him for further cross-examination does not arise. Prima-facie it also appears that alleged agreement dated 11.08.1993 between respondent-plaintiff and one Satwant Singh is not relevant in the instant suit which has been filed for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.09.1993 allegedly executed by defendant Gulzar Singh.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that application filed by petitioner for recalling of the aforesaid witnesses for further cross-examination has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC. The revision petition is completely mis-conceived and meritless and is, accordingly, dismissed.

However nothing observed here-in-before shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit. Since the suit has already been delayed due to interim stay by this court, the trial court is directed to decide the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.