CR No.151 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.151 of 2014 Date of Decision:
14. 1.2014 Sukhpal Kaur ......Petitioner Versus The Sunderam Colonizers (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Kulbhushan Raheja, Advocate for the petitioner. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.
(Oral) Concisely, the facts and material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that, initially, petitioner-plaintiff Sukhpal Kaur wife of Harnek Singh (for brevity “the plaintiff”.) has instituted the civil suit for a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant-respondents Sunderam Colonizers Private Limited and others (for short “the defendants”.) to remove the recently constructed pillars and other constructions from the passage/street. The defendants refuted the claim of plaintiff, filed the written statement, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for its dismissal.
2. Having completed the evidence of plaintiff, the case was slated for evidence of defendants by the trial Court. Subsequently, the plaintiff had produced and proved the sale deed dated 27.12.1995, site plan and other documents, by way of additional evidence. Thereafter, the contesting Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.17 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.151 of 2014 2 defendants No.1 and 2 moved the application (Annexure P1) for recalling the plaintiff to cross-examine her with regard to the pointed documents already placed on the record. The plaintiff contested the plea of defendants, filed the reply (Annexure P2) stoutly denying all the allegations contained in it and prayed for its dismissal.
3. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, the trial Court accepted the application (Annexure P1) and granted one opportunity to contesting defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff, subject to payment of ` 1000/- as costs, by virtue of impugned order dated 24.12.2013 (Annexure P3).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this respect.
6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the defendants have already cross-examined the plaintiff, so, the trial Court committed a legal mistake to permit them to further cross-examine her, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in cases Ranjit Singh v. Naranjan Singh 2010(2) ICC809and Sanjay Sarin v. Payal Sarin 2011(4) Civil Court Cases 788 (P&H) are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was observed that the provision of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is an enabling provision for convenience of the Court and not for the parties to re-examine any witness to fill-in lacunae in the case and witness Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.17 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.151 of 2014 3 cannot be re-summoned for further cross-examination to confront with the video CD in a routine manner. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.
7. As is evident from the record that plaintiff had produced and proved the indicated documents, by way of additional evidence and defendants were well within their right to cross-examine the plaintiff in regard to the pointed documents, which are already on the record. Therefore, question of filling up any lacunae did not arise at all under the present set of circumstances, as contrary urged on behalf of petitioner- plaintiff.
8. Moreover, the trial Court appears to have correctly accepted the application (Annexure P1) filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2, by means of impugned order (Annexure P3), which, in substance, is as under :- “After careful perusal of case file and hearing the rival contentions raised by the counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed, as some novel facts and documents have brought and proved on record by the plaintiff through his additional evidence and now the defendants counsel wish to confront the said documents to the plaintiff alone. No doubt, the site plan was already on the file but that was not proved by anyone earlier and now it is exhibited and proved on record by the plaintiff by leading additional evidence. Further the alleged sale deed was not on record though the plaintiff mentioned about the same in the chief examination of the PW4 and defendants counsel cross-examined him on that point but he did not cross-examine the plaintiff qua the said documents which are necessary for the just decision of the case as alleged. Therefore, the defendants-applicants are allowed to cross- examine the plaintiff on the said point and also allowed to confront the said documents to her, as the procedure is handmaid of justice and not the mistress and meant to advance the ends of justice than to thwart the same. Apart from this, the hyper technicalities cannot be allowed to stand the way of dispensation of justice. Hence, by extending the concept of natural justice to its farthest extent the present application in hand is allowed subject to payment of the costs of Rs.1000/-. It is made clear that only one effective opportunity is given to the Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.17 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.151 of 2014 4 defendants/applicants to cross-examine the plaintiff on the said point as prayed and further the counsel for the plaintiff is directed to bring the plaintiff on the next date of hearing i.e. 03.01.14 for the said purposes.”. 9. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and has recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless & until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, so, the impugned order (Annexure P3) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons , as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is hereby dismissed as such. Sd/- (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 14.1.2014 AS Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.17 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh