IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.6185 of 2017 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 26.04.2022

Nirmal Singh

…..Petitioner

versus

Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar and Others

.....Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Tejeshwar Singh Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Tarun Seth, Advocate for

Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2

Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for respondent No.3

..

ALKA SARIN, J.:

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 28.08.2017 passed

by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar whereby the

plaintiff-petitioner has been directed to cross-examine the witness DW-

Vinod Kumar at the first instance and thereafter the learned counsel for

defendant-respondent No.3 would have the right to cross-examine the said

witness.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend

that the entire case as set up by the plaintiff-petitioner is that there has been

PARKASH CHAND

2022.04.26 14:37

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CR No.6185 of 2017

- 2 -

collusion between the defendant-respondents i.e. officials of defendant-

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and defendant-respondent No.3. The learned

counsel would further contend that the property of the plaintiff-petitioner

has been damaged by the illegal and unlawful construction raised by

defendant-respondent No.3 and yet no action has been taken by defendant-

respondent No.1. It is further the contention that in case the plaintiff-

petitioner has to cross-examine DW-Vinod Kumar at the first instance the

lacunae would be covered up by further cross-examination of DW-Vinod

Kumar by defendant-respondent No.3. In support of his arguments, the

learned counsel has relied upon judgments passed by this Court in the case

of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Jagdeep Singh and others [2013(1) RCR

(Civil) 569] and Pritpal Singh Aurora vs. Rajinder Singh Aurora and

others [2009(3) RCR (Civil) 574] to contend that in order to protect the

right of the plaintiff the co-defendant should be directed to conduct inter se

cross-examination prior to the plaintiff so that they do not demolish the

case of the plaintiff by putting leading questions to each other.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents

have contended that there is nothing adverse which has come in the

evidence of DW-Vinod Kumar as has been held by the Trial Court in the

impugned order and hence it is the plaintiff-petitioner who ought to cross-

examine the DW-Vinod Kumar at the first instance.

Heard.

The dispute in the present case is that the plaintiff-petitioner

filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the construction of the building

of the newly constructed house of defendant-respondent No.3 in Property

PARKASH CHAND

2022.04.26 14:37

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CR No.6185 of 2017

- 3 -

No.107, Gali No.3, Guru Nanak Nagar, Opposite Sports College, Jalandhar

is unauthorised, illegal and against the municipal by-laws. In the said suit,

defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2

are the Municipal Corporation,

Jalandhar and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar.

Defendant-respondent No.3 in the present case is Jatinder Kumar qua

whose house the declaration has been sought. The plaintiff-petitioner in the

plaint has stated that on numerous occasions complaints were sent to the

defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the Deputy Commissioner and

the Commissioner of Police. However, no action had been taken qua the

unauthorised and illegal construction being raised by defendant-respondent

No.3 and hence the plaintiff-petitioner was constrained to file the present

suit. The argument raised by the plaintiff-petitioner is that the very

foundation of the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was that there has

been connivance between the defendant-respond