IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7702-2025 DECIDED ON: 31.10.2025 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONERS VERSUS SHRI GOW RAKSHNI SABHA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the application filed by the petitioners–defendants under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for recalling of PW1 Ashok Kumar and PW2 Deepak Ghai for cross-

examination was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated that the respondent–plaintiff filed a suit for possession and mandatory injunction in respect of the property situated at Gaushala Road, Ludhiana. The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement contesting the suit. Issues were framed and both sides led their respective evidence.

3. PW1 Ashok Kumar and PW2 Deepak Ghai were examined-in- chief on 29.05.2024 and 17.07.2024 respectively. However, the defendants failed to cross-examine these witnesses despite repeated opportunities granted by the Court. Consequently, their cross-examination was ordered to be treated as “Nil”.

4. Thereafter, the defendants led their evidence, the case was fixed for final arguments, and on 01.08.2025, after nearly one year from the passing of the above orders, the defendants moved the impugned application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC seeking recalling of PW1 and PW2 for cross-

examination.

5. The learned trial Court, vide detailed order dated 08.09.2025, dismissed the application holding that sufficient opportunities had been granted earlier; the application was highly belated and not supported by any affidavit; and that it had been filed merely to delay the proceedings at the stage of final arguments.

6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order dated 08.09.2025, the present revision petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned trial Court has erred in dismissing the application in a cursory and mechanical manner without appreciating the true scope of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, which empowers the Court to recall any witness at any stage if it considers such examination necessary for just decision of the case. It is contended that the petitioners had no knowledge that the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 had been treated as ‘Nil’ and that the learned counsel for the defendants had not been apprised of the orders whereby the cross- examination of PW-1 and PW-2 had been treated as ‘Nil’. It is further submitted that recalling of the said witnesses would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff, as the case has not yet been finally decided. On the other hand, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the witnesses are not allowed to be cross-examined, as it would deny them a fair opportunity to defend the suit.

8. Reliance can be placed upon ‘Foodworld Super Markets Ltd. and anr. v. H. Sujan Singh and others’, 2009 (14) SCC 359, wherein it was held that a witness may be recalled for just decision of the case and to avoid miscarriage of justice.

9. Mr. Subhash Thatai, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. He further argues that as per zimni order dated 17.07.2024, cross-examination of PW2 has already been concluded. It has been further contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and, therefore, prays that the present revision petition be dismissed.

10. This Court has carefully examined the record of the case as well as the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. It is evident that the learned trial Court has dismissed the application moved by the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC mainly on the ground that su