(120) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:05.02.2026 VIRANDER KUMAR MANGOTRA ...Petitioner Vs.

SNEH BHAGAT AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure P-7), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. By the said order, the learned trial court allowed an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recall of PW-2 for cross-examination, who, inadvertently, could not be examined during the original proceeding

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief based on a Will. In the course of trial, PW-2, who was identified as a attesting witness, was examined to prove the authenticity and contents of the Will. The Court recorded his examination-in-chief; however, his cross-examination could not be completed at that time, as it was deferred at the specific request of the petitioner/defendant. Subsequently, during the passage of proceedings, PW-2 could not be recalled immediately, and the respondent/plaintiff’s evidence was ultimately closed by the Court. After the petitioner/defendant concluded his evidence, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking recall of PW-2 to enable him to be cross-examined, as his testimony had not been fully elicited. The learned Civil Judge, after considering the submissions of both parties and following due contest, allowed the application by the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure P-7), permitting the recall of PW-2 for cross- examination. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner/defendant has filed the present Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging its legality, propriety, and correctness.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file carefully.

4. The provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure empower the Court to recall a witness if his testimony is necessary for the just decision of the case. In the present matter, PW-2 was tendered in evidence by the respondent/plaintiff. His examination-in-chief was recorded, while his cross-examination was deferred at the request of the counsel for the petitioner/defendant. The Court had bound down the witness to appear on the next date; however, the witness failed to appear, and his cross-examination could not be recorded. Ultimately, the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was closed by order of the Court.

5. Once the respondent/plaintiff had tendered the witness for cross- examination and Court had recorded his examination-in-chief, it was incumbent upon the Court to ensure the witness’s presence on the adjourned date. In the event of non-appearance, the Court has ample power to procure the attendance of the witness through coercive measures. In the present case, such measures were not exercised, and the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was closed.

6. Thereafter, by exercising its discretionary power under Section 151 CPC, the learned Civil Judge allowed the respondent/plaintiff an opportunity to recall the witness for cross-examination. In doing so, the Court corrected the procedural lapse and provided the petitioner/respondent the chance to present evidence that is essential for a just decision of the case. It is settled law under the law of evidence that a Will, which must be attested by at least two witnesses, cannot be proved without examining at least one witness. Since the witness examined by the respondent/plaintiff could not be cross- examined initially, his testimony could not have been read into evidence, which would have effectively defeated the claim of the respondent/plaintiff.

7. This