IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 131 CR-2387-2025 Date of Decision.:07.05.2025 Tejbir …..Pe++oner Vs. Chand .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Surinder Gaur, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner herein is the plainff in civil suit bearing CS-566-2016 tled as “Tejbir versus Chand” pending before learned Addional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar. He is aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court, whereby his applicaon to recall PW1- plainff for his cross-examinaon has been rejected. Under challenge is also the order dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-2), whereby evidence of the plainff was closed. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that suit was filed by the plainff- peoner seeking possession of the suit property by way of specific performance. Plainff had appeared as his own witness on 09.07.2024, on which date his examinaon-in-chief was recorded. Ma<er was adjourned for recording his cross-examinaon but due to inadvertent mistake of the counsel, the evidence was closed on 27.08.2024. The peoner- plainff realized the said mistake at the me of addressing arguments and so, he moved the applicaon for recalling the order dated 27.08.2024 and seeking permission to recall PW-1 Tejbir for the purpose of cross-examinaon but that applicaon was rejected by the Court on 04.04.2025. Learned counsel submits that for the fault of the counsel, the party should not suffer and so, the peoner- plainff be granted one opportunity to appear as his witness for compleon of his cross- examinaon. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.08 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2387-2025 -2- 3. A@er hearing learned counsel for the peoner at considerable length, this Court does not find merit in the peon. 4. As has been observed by the trial Court in the impugned order that a@er recording the examinaon-in-chief of the plainff on 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-4), the ma<er was adjourned twice for compleon of his cross- examinaon but he did not appear. Rather, on 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-2), counsel for the plainff, a@er tendering certain documents, closed the evidence at his own, without the compleon of the statement of PW-1 Tejbir. 5. Ma<er does not rest here. This Court could have taken it as an inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel for the plainff- peoner to close the evidence but the perusal of the impugned order would reveal that a@er closing the evidence of the plainff, even the defendant has closed his evidence. So much so, plainff closed his evidence in rebu<al on 11.03.2025. Even the final arguments were advanced by counsel for both the pares and it is only then that the applicaon for recalling PW-1 was moved for compleon of his cross-examinaon. 6. Having noced the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the applicaon to recall PW1 was moved by the peoner- plainff only to fill in the lacuna, which must have been pointed out by counsel for the respondent- defendant at the me of final arguments. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 27.05.2024 (Annexure P-2). As such, holding the present revision to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) May 07, 2025 JUDGE Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.08 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document