121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:03.02.2026 BALWINDER SINGH ...Petitioner Vs.

PARGAT SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Raghav Grover, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby the application (Annexure P-5) filed by Respondent-Defendant No. 1 for recalling PW-1, Balwinder Singh (petitioner), for further cross-examination, was allowed. The order has been assailed on the ground that the discretion vested in the Court was exercised in an arbitrary and unjustified manner.

2. The learned Court, while allowing the application, referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by the counsel for the petitioner in Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh and Others, 2025 (2) RCR (Civil) 775, decided on 05.05.2025. The reasoning given in the said judgment has not been touched upon. In this case, an application was moved by the respondent for recalling the witness for further cross-examination, as the witness could not be confronted with certain documents which were in the possession of Respondent/Defendant No.1. Respondent/Defendant No.1 could not reach the Court in time with the said documents due to bad weather, and consequently, his counsel cross-examined the witness in a formal manner. In the present case, Respondent/Defendant No.1 has moved an application seeking permission to further cross-examine PW-1 Balwinder Singh and to confront him with the previous complaint and statements made by PW-1 Balwinder Singh in the enquiry proceedings, as well as with the memorandum of understanding/partnership dated 15.02.2012. The petitioner contested the said application and prayed for its dismissal on the ground that PW-1 had already been elaborately cross-examined by Respondent/Defendant No.1, and that a mere change of counsel does not confer any right upon the new counsel to recall the witness for further cross-examination in order to fill up lacunae in the case of Respondent/Defendant No.1.

3. The Court, after considering the contentions of the parties, chose to allow the application, and in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order, observed as under:

This Court is of the considered view that as per the law relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff in cse law titled as “Shubhkaran Singh Vs. Abhayraj Singh and others”, (Supra), to recall a witness is a right given to the cross only and as in the present case, the documents, which could not be put to the witness due to the reasons mentioned in the application, is relevant to the just and proper decision of the case, therefore, the application in hand, is hereby allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Civil Judge failed to correctly appreciate and discuss the ratio laid down in the judgment relied upon while allowing the application.

5. Observation made by the learned Civil Judge, that in the said case the party was granted a right only to recall the witness for the purpose of cross-examination does not find support from the record. No such finding was recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court. On the contrary, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph No. 10 of the said judgment, held as under:

“10. We are of the opinion that if circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to re-call a witness for examining, cross-examining, re-examining can be granted by a Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure.”

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court has relied upon another judgment in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, reported at 2011:INSC:243, and paragraph No. 19 of the said judgment has been quoted as und