IMPORTANT POINT
.

B. S. WALIA, J.

1. Prayer in this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is for setting aside of order dated 01.11.2017 i.e. Annexure P-4 vide which the application for recalling respondent No.1 i.e. PW-4-Avtar Singh has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the revision petition are that plaintiff-respondent-Avtar Singh had filed a suit against defendant No.6-petitioner as well as defendant Nos.1 to 5 i.e. proforma respondents for possession as owner by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.07.2011 of two houses as per details given in the title of the plaint i.e. Annexure P-4 and in the alternative suit for recovery of Rs.28,60,000/- i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- earnest money paid by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant No.1/proforma respondent No.1 at the time of execution to agreement of sell dated 14.07.2011 and writing dated 30.07.2011 and Rs.13,60,000/- as damages together with pendente lite and future interest as also suit for declaration that the alleged agreement to sell dated 30.08.2011 allegedly executed by defendant Nos.4 and 5 i.e. proforma respondent Nos.5 and 6 in favour of defendant No.6 i.e. petitioner herein was illegal, null and void and further suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining defendant No.6 i.e. petitioner herein as well as proforma respondents from alienating by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange etc or in any other manner, the suit property duly described in the heading 'A' of the plaint.

3. Defendant No.6 i.e. petitioner herein and proforma respondents contested the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 by filing written statements. In order to prove the case, plaintiff/respondent No.1 examined himself as PW-4, whereafter PW-Amit Kumar and Om Parkash were examined. Thereafter, PW-Malkit Singh was examined-in-chief but his cross-examination was deferred on request of defendant No.6 i.e. petitioner herein. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that the plaintiff i.e. PW-4-Avtar Singh closed his evidence vide order dated 09.08.2017.

4. Thereafter, defendant No.6 i.e. petitioner herein moved an application i.e. Annexure P-2 dated 05.09.2017 for recalling PW-4 i.e. Avtar Singh, plaintiff by stating that inadvertently his counsel had not put all relevant and material questions to PW-4 which were necessary for the correct decision by the Court of the learned SDJM, Malerkotla.

5. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a reply to the application i.e. Annexure P-3 dated 01.11.2017. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the application i.e. Annexure P-2 for recall of plaintiff i.e. PW-4-Avtar Singh was dismissed vide Order Annexure P-4 dated 01.11.2017 without appreciating that the further cross-examination of PW-4 plaintiff was necessary and in case the same was not allowed, irreparable loss would be occasioned to defendant No.6-petitioner herein, as the petitioner intended to prove the factum of cheating committed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 in connivance with proforma respondent Nos.5 and 6.

6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that plaintiff-Avtar Singh (wrongly recorded therein as Sukhdev Singh) was duly cross-examined at length on 21.07.2017. The plaintiff in his statement in the Court admitted complaint having been made against him of his having cheated defendant No.6 i.e. petitioner therein. After taking into account all aspects of the matter, the learned trial Court dismissed the application for recall of PW-4 i.e. plaintiff.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Admittedly, the plaintiff was duly cross-examined at length on 21.07.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that in his statement before the Court, the accused i.e. plaintiff/respondent No.1 has admitted complaint having been made against him of his having cheated defendant No.6 i.e. petitioner therein. The application for recall of PW-4 i.e. plaintiff-respondent No