- (1.) A. P. Sahi, J. Let Smt. Aneeta Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi be impleaded as opposite party Nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) SRI S. P. Singh Parmar, Advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of the newly impleaded respondents. He has also filed separate affidavits with the photo graphs of the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 state that they have no objection in case the depo nents of the said affidavits, are allowed to be recalled under section 311 Cr. P. C. Learned A. G. A. has supported the order impugned on the ground that this. shall cause unnecessary delay and that there is no reason exist to warrant recall of the said witnesses when their examina tions have already been completed.
(3.) HAVING perused the affidavits filed by the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 and having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it is evident that the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 have no objection if the appli cation for a recall under section 311 Cr. P. C. is entertained. In these circumstances and keeping in view the affidavits which have been filed before this Court, the Court be low ought to have permitted the recall of the said witnesses as certain important questions were likely to be put for the pur poses of the defence. In view of this, the order dated 11. 1. 2008 is set aside with a direction to the Court below to re-consider the application for recall in the light of the observations made herein above and there after proceed with the matter and dispose of it as expeditiously as possibly without any further delay. The revision is accordingly al lowed to the aforesaid extent. Revision Allowed. .;