Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral):- Petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 07.10.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Rewari vide which application for recalling of PWs examined by the plaintiff was declined and order dated 30.10.2015 whereby the petitioner was not allowed to examine other witnesses on the objection raised by the plaintiff.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only for cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-5 by the petitioner and qua the second relief of examining his witnesses, the petitioner would move appropriate application before the trial Court along with list of witnesses and thereafter the trial Court may pass appropriate order on the said application.

3. With the aforesaid statement, I proceed to decide this revision petition only in the context of prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for cross-examining the aforesaid witnesses viz. PW1 and PW-5.

4. Brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Lamberdar of the village on 25.02.2009 by the Collector, Rewari. His appointment was upheld by the Commissioner vide order dated 25.02.2010. Respondent No.1 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed on 20.01.2011. Respondent No.1 also unsuccessfully challenged the order of Financial Commissioner in CWP No.1607 of 2012 which was dismissed on 21.02.2014.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly admitted that even LPA filed against the aforesaid order dated 21.02.2014 was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.

6. While appointing the petitioner as Lamberdar of the village, the Collector passed the following remarks against respondent No.1.

“Satish Kumar candidate and his family are in illegal possession of the Panchayat Land and Shamlat land. He is not of clear image. Cases have been registered against him under different sections of the IPC and he remained confined in jail and was also wanted in electricity theft case.”

7. Respondent No.1 sought to get the remarks expunged by way of filing a civil suit before the trial Court. He did not implead the petitioner. Petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the trial Court which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed CR No.474 of 2013 in which prayer of the petitioner was accepted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, however subject to a rider. The operative part of the order dated 12.09.2013 reads as under:-

“Since the prayer in the suit is for removal of some adverse remarks in the Collector’s order, the Collector is a party. In my view, the presence of the petitioner is still relevant and his impleadment would be proper in the suit. It would seem to me that the plaintiff’s declaration is not merely to remove a blot that has been made regarding his alleged illegal possession and alleged conviction in a case, but it is for a particular purpose of regaining an appointment which he has lost and which is the subject of challenge by means of the writ petition. The petitioner himself is the rival contender for the office and any decision in the civil court will have a direct bearing to his own position as a subsequent appointee. Though not necessary party, the petitioner was still a proper party to the proceedings and the plaintiff in no way would be prejudiced by such impleadment. On the other hand, the presence of the petitioner would enable the court to secure an evidence of what had been brought before the Collector and he will ensure that there is proper defence that is made by the State and would vindicate his own selection subsequently in preference to the plaintiff.

The the respondent has an apprehension that the petitioner will utilize the opportunity of his presence in the suit to heap innuendos against the plaintiff and sully his esteem and good name. The court shall ensure that the defendant’s presence is only in the context of adverse remark