Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Ganesh Mal Nanak Chand vs Lakhwinder Singh And Others on 18 March, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
CR No.1799 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1799 of 2010
Date of decision: 18.3.2010
M/s Ganesh Mal Nanak Chand ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Lakhwinder Singh and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Dabwali whereby application of the petitioner for recalling the witness- Prem Parkash has been rejected.
As per the averments made in this petition, a suit for recovery on basis of books of accounts was filed by the petitioner. During the recording of evidence, the petitioner appeared being partner and exhibited the Bahi entries but later on, the petitioner realized that the Bahi entries were required to be proved by the persons who had actually made the said entries. According to the petitioner, few of Bahi entries were written by PW-1 Prem Parkash and therefore, to prove the said Bahi entries, an application under Order 18 rule 17 CPC for recalling the said witness was made which was, however, dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree. Hence the present revision petition.
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the CR No.1799 of 2010 2 petitioner has vehemently argued that the trial Court has completely misinterpreted the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC which give ample power to the Court to afford a reasonable opportunity to all the parties to prove their case. He further argued that the technicalities of law should not come in the dispensation of justice and therefore, the impugned order be set aside and PW-1 Prem Parkash be recalled for examination.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of this petition.
While passing the impugned order, the trial Court observed as under:
"Perusal of case file shows that PW-1 Prem Parkash, one of the partners of the plaintiff firm got recorded his statement on 22.3.2005. In his evidence, he had stated all the facts, which were alleged by the plaintiff firm in the plaint. He was duly cross-examined by the opposite party/defendants. Thereafter, plaintiff after examining Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as PW-2 closed its evidence in affirmative. Thereafter, the defendants also concluded their evidence and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. After taking various adjournments for rebuttal evidence, plaintiff had moved the present application for recalling of PW-1 to elaborate regarding scribing of entries in the account of defendant No.1 on the ground that inadvertently said fact could not be stated by PW-1 in his examination. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that court has ample power to recall any witness on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit and CR No.1799 of 2010 3 prayed that PW-1 be recalled for examination to elaborate the facts regarding scribing of bahi entries in the account of defendant No.1. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as J.K. Jain Vs. Krishnaram Baldeo, 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 036 (Delhi) as well as judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case titled as Krishnaveni & Ors. Vs. Gopal Pandithar, 2007(2) Civil Court Cases, 031 (Madras)."
There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for administration of justice. The provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC enable the Court to clarify any doubt which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. However, the said provision is not intended to be used for filling up omissions in the evidence of the witnesses who have already been examined.
In the present case, PW-1 got recorded his statement on 22.3.2005 and in his evidence, he stated all the facts as alleged by the plaintiff-firm in the plaint. PW-1 being one of partners of the firm had entire knowledge regarding the transactions of the plaintiff-firm and also regarding scribe of entries in the account books. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined the remaining evidence on its behalf and closed its evidence in affirmative. Thereafter, the defendants also concluded their evidence and the case is now fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. Not only this, the present application has been moved by the petitioner after taking various adjournments for producing the rebuttal evidence. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, under the garb of recalling the CR No.1799 of 2010 4 witness, the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-examine the witness to fill up the lacuna in its evidence.
No merits.
Dismissed.
March 18, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE