IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (125 Date of Decision:-17.02.2026 ANIL KUMAR … Petitioner Versus JHIRI WALI SAMADHAN AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Divyam Suri, Advocate for Caveator/respondents No.1 to 3.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

CM-2457-C-2026 The application is allowed in terms of the prayer made therein, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case

1. The present civil revision petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, to assail the order dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala. By the said order, the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.3 seeking recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination came to be dismissed.

2. It is contended that PW-1, the plaintiff–respondent, appeared in the witness box in support of his case and was duly cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.3. Thereafter, an application was moved seeking recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination on the ground that certain material aspects had not been put to the witness by the previous counsel.

2.1. The specific points on which further cross-examination was sought are delineated in paragraph No.2 of the application and are detailed as under:–

“A. Ownership entitled documents of petitioner society and proof of the land-lordship qua the answering respondent;

B. Authority and competency of PW-1 to depose on behalf of society;

C. The rent deed/original documents of alleged to have been lost;

D. Alleged arrears of rent and particular thereof;

E. Allegations of sub-letting, its date and mode and absence of consent;

F. The pleading structure condition of shop and the claim of bonafide personal requirement;”

3. The said application was contested by the respondent and, upon consideration, came to be dismissed vide the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has instituted the present revision petition.

4. I have duly considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously perused the record placed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent–plaintiff could not be effectively cross-examined on certain material and germane aspects owing to inadvertence and lapse on the part of the previous counsel. It is submitted that, in the interest of justice and to afford a fair opportunity of defence, the witness ought to have been recalled for further cross-examination.

6. The impugned order specifically records that the application for recall had been moved with the apparent intent to protract the proceedings, particularly at the fag end of the trial when the matter stood fixed for the evidence of the respondent. It is borne out from the record that the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 03.12.2025, and since then the case has been pending for the petitioner’s evidence. The petitioner had availed several opportunities to lead evidence, and only thereafter was the present application filed.

6.1. A perusal of the record further reveals that PW-1 was cross- examined at considerable length by the learned counsel representing the respondent. I have carefully examined the copy of the cross-examination placed on record. The same demonstrates that the respondent–petitioner was thoroughly and extensively cross-examined on all material aspects, including those enumerated in the recall application, particularly with regard to ownership, title documents of the petitioner–society, and proof of land-lordship qua the answering defendants.

6.2. The record unmistakably reflects that the earlier counsel had conducted a comprehensive cross-examination on these very issues. A mere change of counsel cannot constitute a valid or sufficient ground for recalling a witness for further cross-examination. Such a course, if permitted