Tulsi Das vs Labu Ram and Others

A.M. Kapadia, J.—This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th September 2009 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1784 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 2 Parasmal is allowed and thereby order dated 27.07.2007 passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed under Order 18 Rule 27 of the CPC (for short, ''the Code'') for recalling witness Parasmal, who was already examined by the trial Court, has been quashed and set aside.

We have heard Mr. Jitendra Chopra, learned Counsel for the appellant. We have also perused the averments made in the petition and the documents forming part of the writ petition as well as the impugned order rendered by learned Single Judge.

Appellant Tulsi Ram submitted reply to the application filed under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code stating that the property in question belongs to respondent No. 1 Labu Ram and not of respondent No. 2 Parasmal. In the said proceedings Parasmal respondent No. 2 was already examined. Thereafter, Megh Raj was also examined but his cross examination was still awaited. During that period, appellant Tulsi Ram filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the Code. Tulsi Ram also filed an application under Order 13 Rule 3 (ka) of the Code. Thereafter, one more application was filed by the appellant under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall witness Parasmal for further cross examination. The said application came to be allowed which was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has observed that the trial Court has committed error in passing the order under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall the said witness Parasmal at the fag end of the execution proceedings on the document produced by him. The trial Court did not disclose any reason why at belated stage the application filed by the appellant was allowed and the said finding of the trial Court has been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge. In our considered view, in passing the impugned order the learned Single Judge has committed no error.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requiring our interference in this intra-Court appeal.

The appeal fails and accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. Resultantly, the order dated 10.09.2009, rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1784 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge is affirmed.