Judgment

Mrs. Archana Puri, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), whereby, an application for recalling/re-cross-examination of PW-6 Rajiv Kumar, has been dismissed.

2. The essential facts, as culled out from the paper-book are that, initially, respondents-plaintiffs Ranbir Singh and others has filed a suit against Virender-petitioner, for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 27.05.2016, vis-a-vis, land measuring 24 Kanal, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, copy whereof is Annexure P-1.

3. At the stage of the evidence, the plaintiffs had examined one Rajiv Kumar as PW-6 and he was also cross-examined by counsel for the defendant-petitioner on 05.10.2019. Thereafter, on 07.02.2020, an application was filed by the petitioner-defendant, thereby, seeking recalling of the said witness Rajiv Kumar for re-cross-examination. Therein, it was stated that Rajiv Kumar could not be properly cross-examined and he is required to be re-cross-examined, as petitioner-defendant has come to know some new, important and relevant facts, which are necessary for the proper and just adjudication of the case. Also, therein, it was stated that recross-examination will not be prejudice to the respondents-plaintiffs, rather, it shall help the Court in arriving the just decision.

4. However, in reply, filed to the said application, respondents plaintiffs had resisted the claim of the petitioner-defendant. Preliminary objection was taken with regard to the application being vague and is intended to harass the plaintiffs by making fishing inquiry and to delay the decision of the case. On merits, it was asserted that the said witness has been thoroughly cross-examined at length. The petitioner-defendant had not disclosed as to what questions remained to be asked. As such, a prayer was made for dismissal of the application.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties concerned, vide impugned order dated 06.05.2022, the aforesaid application, as such, was dismissed.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal of the application, the petitioner-defendant has filed the present revision.

7. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has submitted that suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2016 was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. However, during the pendency of the said suit, after examination of PW-6 Rajiv Kumar, who was examined on 05.10.2019, the petitioner-defendant could lay hands on certain relevant information under the RTI and thereupon, he filed the aforesaid application on 07.02.2020, copy whereof is Annexure P-2, for recalling/re-cross-examination.

9. It is submitted that learned Court below had erroneously dismissed the aforesaid application, while observing that the relevant facts, which were necessary for the just decision of the case, for which re-cross-examination is required, have not been disclosed. In the light of the same, now, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is provision for recalling and re-examination of the witness, as per Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and therefore, under the aforesaid provision, the requisite witness could be recalled. Also, it is submitted that the documents, which are essential and which are to be put to the witness, now have already been placed on record, in a sealed cover.

10. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has resisted the claim of the petitioner-defendan