Roshan Lal vs Ram Asra Mal

Bakhshish Kaur, J.—This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 28.1.2000 whereby the defendants-respondents were allowed to recall the witness i.e. the plaintiff for further cross-examination.

The admitted facts of the case are that Roshan Lal plaintiff, now petitioner, had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from dispossessing/demolishing the shop in question. The suit was contested as a result of which issues were framed. The plaintiff had examined certain witnesses besides himself coming into the witness box as his own witness. He was also subjected to cross-examination. The copy of the statement of Roshan Lal plaintiff is Annexure P-2. He was examined on two different dates i.e. his examination-in-chief was recorded on 8.12.1999. On the next date i.e. on 15.12.1999 his cross-examination was conducted.

Copy of the application filed by the respondents under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC which has been allowed by the impugned order, is Annexure P-3. A careful reading of the application reveals that it has not been specifically mentioned as to in what respect further cross-examination of the petitioner is essential and what are the essential questions which could not be put to him earlier.

During the course of arguments Mr. Sandhawalia, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the respondents will further cross-examine the witness only in respect of the preliminary objection taken in the written statement which relates to the filing of an earlier suit by the plaintiff and its withdrawal liter on. Adverting to the cross-examination of the plaintiff (Annexure P-2), it is abundantly clear that this fact has already been put to him whereby he has admitted the filing of the suit and the reasons for the withdrawal of the same.

In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained particularly when the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC appears to be quite vague. In view of the law laid down in Jai Bhagwan v. Smt. Lajwanti 1978 PLJ 276, Mangal Singh v. Didar Singh Desh Bhagat 1994(2) RRR 492 and Bhag Singh v. Madan Lal Walia 1998(2) RCR 457 the impugned order cannot be sustained. Revision pelition is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 5.12.2000.

Revision allowed.