Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yadwinder Kaur vs Bhupinder Singh And Others on 20 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040358
2024:PHHC:040358
123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-5582-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
Yadwinder Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
Bhupinder Singh (deceased) through LRs and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Rakesh Chopra and
Mr. Jashan Chopra, Advocates for the respondents
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendant to
challenge the correctness of the order permitting his counsel to further
cross-examine defendant no.1 and his witnesses.
2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present
case, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. Originally, the plaintiff's suit for the grant of decree of
declaration to the effect that he is owner to the extent of half share of the
suit property was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree
dated 07.12.2013. In an appeal filed by the plaintiff, the First Appellate
Court remitted the matter back to the trial court with the following
observations:-
"15. As a result of the aforesaid
discussion, the court is left with no other option but to
set aside the findings returned by the ld. Lower court
by way of the impugned judgment dated 7.12.2013 in
toto. The necessary consequences that follow are:-
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040358
CR-5582-2018 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:040358
1) The civil suit under reference stands revived and
remanded to the lower court for fresh adjudication.
2) The court shall proceed to array all the heirs of
Gulzar Singh, existing and alive at the time of his
death according to Hindu
Succession Act, as parties to the suit.
3) The court shall, after receiving the pleadings of the
newly impleaded parties, frame fresh issues or recast
the previous issues as it feels necessary in the
interests of justice.
4) The parties be given fresh opportunity to adduce
any other evidence if they so desire.
5) After receiving fresh evidence, if at all, the court
shall return fresh findings on all the issues after
taking into consideration the entire evidence on the
record.
6) The court shall make a sincere endeavour to
dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible
within four months.
7) The parties shall appear before the learned lower
court on 3.5.2018 for further proceedings.
The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Copy of this judgment alongwith lower court file be
directly transmitted to the lower court for further
proceedings and appeal file be consigned to the
record room."
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, once again the proceedings
started before the trial court. On 30.08.2018, the plaintiff's counsel
stated that the evidence already led by the plaintiff be read as his oral
evidence. Subsequently, the defendant also made a statement to the
same effect and closed his evidence.
5. On 09.08.2018, the plaintiff filed an application that he
wants to cross-examine the defendants and also his witnesses, which has
been allowed by the court.
6. From a perusal of the application as well as the order passed
by the trial court, it is evident that no reason whatsoever has been
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040358
CR-5582-2018 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:040358
recorded or given either by the plaintiff or by the court to allow the
request of the plaintiff to recall the witness.
7. Recalling of the witness is regulated by Order XVIII Rule
17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff
was granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the first
round. When the plaintiff was granted opportunity to lead evidence after
the case was remanded, he did not lead any fresh evidence.
Accordingly, defendant also made a similar statement. In these
circumstances, it was not appropriate for the trial court to allow the
plaintiff's application without any cogent reason to permit further cross-
examination of the defendant and his witnesses.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, the
revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial
court on 10.08.2018, is set aside.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
20.03.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
