JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3-A of CPC has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondent had filed an election petition under the provisions of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 against the present petitioner, in which challenge was made to the election of the present petitioner to the post of Sarpanch. The said election petition was numbered as EP No.8/2022. A written statement was filed to the said election petition and thereafter, the issues were framed and as is apparent from the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 (Annexure P-6), which facts have not been controverted on behalf of the petitioner, two affidavits of witnesses namely, Ram Narain and Bharat Singh were submitted in examination-in-chief on 13.10.2023. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the cross-examination of the said witnesses were deferred on 13.10.2023 and the case was adjourned to 10.11.2023 for cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 and for the remaining evidence of the respondent. On 10.11.2023, the counsel for the petitioner had partly cross-examined PW1 and the case was adjourned to 24.11.2023 for the remaining cross-examination of the evidence of the respondent. The zimni order dated 24.11.2023 and even the other zimni orders have not been placed on record but as is apparent from the impugned order, an application was moved by the present petitioner on 08.12.2023 under Order 18 Rule 3A of CPC read with Section 151 CPC praying that the respondent be directed to appear for examination before examination of other witnesses.

3. A reply (Annexure P-5) was filed to the said application in which it was stated that two witnesses were examined in chief and no objection was raised by the present petitioner or his counsel at that time and even, the counsel for the petitioner had partly cross-examined one witness and the request for adjournment was sought by the counsel for the petitioner for further cross-examining the said witness. It was further submitted that the legality, validity and the relevance of the evidence of the said witness could not be ascertained at that stage and the same could only be considered at the time of final arguments and thus, there was no necessity to examine the respondent prior to the completion of the cross-examination of the witnesses, whose evidence in chief had already been submitted and whose cross-examination had already started, and that the said application was only filed to delay the proceedings in the election petition.

4. The trial Court, vide order dated 07.09.2024 (Annexure P-6), after taking into consideration the fact that two affidavits of two witnesses had already been submitted and one of the witnesses had also been partly cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner and that the case was being adjourned on the request of the counsel for the petitioner for further cross-examination and at no stage, had the counsel for the present petitioner raised any objection to examine the respondent first, more so, at the time of tendering of the affidavits of the said witnesses PW1 and PW2 and also at the time of partly cross-examining PW1, had observed that thus, it was not open to the petitioner to raise the said objection. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as Gurmail Chand Vs. Ashok Verma reported as 2004 (2) PLR 460 and the matter was thereafter adjourned to 13.09.2024 for remaining cross-examination of PW1 and PW2. The zimni order dated 13.09.2024, transpiring what order was passed on 13.09.2024, has not been placed on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provision of Order 18 Rule 3A of CPC i