##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

CR-3989-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 12.05.2026

ISHAN SHARMA . . . . Petitioner

Vs.

Ravinder Singh

. . . . Respondent

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate, for

Mr. Aslam, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-9900-CII-2026

Application is allowed as prayed for.

CR-3989-2026

Petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent

Restriction Act, 1949 bearing Rent Case No.51 of 2019 titled ‘Ravinder Singh

versus Ishan’, instituted by the landlord seeking ejectment of tenant-Ishan from

the demised premises, is pending before learned Rent Controller, Pathankot.

2. After conclusion of the evidence on behalf of the landlord, the

matter was fixed for tendering of documents and evidence on behalf of the

tenant. At that stage, the petitioner-tenant moved an application under Order

XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of AW-1 Ravinder Singh, the landlord, for

further examination/cross-examination. The said application has been

dismissed by learned Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 24.04.2026

(Annexure P-2), which is under challenge in the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although AW-1

Ravinder Singh had earlier been cross-examined at length, certain material

questions touching the core controversy could not be put to the witness due to

inadvertence and bona fide oversight on the part of the counsel. It is argued

that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is discretionary in nature and is

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.13 15:02

I agree to specified portions of

this document

Chandigarh

CR-3989-2026 2026:PHHC:074331

intended to enable the Court to arrive at a just decision. Therefore, according

to learned counsel, the learned Rent Controller ought to have exercised such

discretion in favour of the petitioner.

4. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and has perused the impugned order.

5. Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC confers limited power upon the Court to

recall and examine a witness if such course is considered necessary for

clarification of any issue or for enabling the Court to effectively adjudicate the

matter. The provision cannot be invoked as a matter of routine to fill up

omissions in evidence or to provide a party with an opportunity to improve

upon its case after conclusion of cross-examination.

6. In the present case, the record reveals that AW-1 Ravinder Singh

had already been thoroughly examined and cross-examined by the petitioner.

The petitioner had sufficient and adequate opportunity to put all relevant

questions to the witness during the course of such cross-examination.

Significantly, the application seeking recall of the witness was moved only after

the landlord had concluded his entire evidence and the matter had reached the

stage of defence evidence.

7. The application itself does not disclose any exceptional

circumstance warranting recall of the witness. Mere assertion that certain

questions could not be put due to inadvertence or oversight, without specifying

any compelling reason or demonstrating that such questions are indispensable

for adjudication of the controversy, does not constitute sufficient ground for

exercising power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC.

8. The learned Rent Controller has rightly observed that the

application appeared to be an attempt to prolong the proceedings, which were

already at an advanced stage. It is a settled principle that procedural provisions

cannot be permitted to be used in a manner that results in unnecessary delay

or abuse of the process of Court.

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.13 15:02

I agree to specified portions of

this document Page 2 of 3

Chandigarh

CR-3989-2026 2026:PHHC:074331

9. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or

perversity in the exercise of discretion by the learned Rent Controller while

dismissing the application moved by the petitioner.

10. Consequently, finding no merit in the p