Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) Plaintiff's Witness, Pritpal Singh turned hostile during cross-examination. His deposition was recorded. On 14.3.2007 when the matter was deferred "due to lunch", the plaintiff does not appear to have made much of remaining cross-examination of the said witness and closed his evidence in 2009. After closing evidence, the plaintiff moved an application in the Court to formally close the evidence of PW Pritpal Singh and that he may be given an opportunity to conclude it. The application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 9.1.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Fatehgarh Saheb. Though there appears to be no reason to allow the request of the plaintiff after closing his evidence, but Mr. Chopra, learned counsel submits that in the order, certain uncalled for remarks have been made against the learned counsel by the trial court which were not necessary for deciding the application. He would point out to the following:- "...... Now when the proceedings of the present suit are nearing culmination, the plaintiff (through Lrs) has chosen to wake up for hibernation for moving the present application. This step by step contemplation on behalf of the plaintiff and his counsel smacks of mala fides and shows that they are indulging in dilatory tactics for delaying the final decision in the present case. When the counsel for the plaintiff has himself closed the evidence in affirmative, not only once but twice, then it does not lie in his mouth that inadvertently the fact of incomplete examination of PW Pritpal Singh could not be pointed out earlier. When the plaintiff and his counsel themselves have failed to exercise due diligence at the appropriate stage, then they cannot be allowed to seek any discretionary relief from the Court at this belated stage merely by pleading the ground of inadvertence and forgetfulness (Emphasis supplied)."
(2.) There appears to be merit in Mr. Chopra's submission that conduct of the counsel should not have been commented upon nor mala fide should have been imputed against the counsel who remains an Officer of the Court. It is within the jurisdiction of the trial court to decide the application, in accordance with law and not to introduce foreign matter not contemplated in pleadings. While dismissing this revision petition, I would order deletion of all references made with regard to the learned counsel for the parties appearing before the trial court and above underlined parts of the impugned order shall stand deleted from the judicial record.
(3.) Since PW Pritpal Singh has been partially cross-examined, his deposition till the end of his cross-examination based on the affidavit tendered by way of examination-in-chief has to be read in evidence or against the plaintiff. Therefore, the evidence of PW Pritpal Singh recorded upto 14.3.2007, the date when the further cross-examination was deferred shall be treated as evidence, even though there may not be a formal order of closure. The lacuna left by the trial court on 14.3.2007 will now be treated by the order of this Court as conclusive of the testimony of PW Pritpal Singh as on 14.3.2007. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of. Revision disposed of.;