- (1.) By this common order, I propose to dispose of the above mentioned two revision petitions as challenge in both these petitions is to the order dated 11.8.2014 [Annexure P/3] passed by learned Civil Judge [Junior Division], Mohali.
(2.) Facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 5651 of 2014. A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7.1.2006 having been filed by the respondent-plaintiff is pending adjudication before the trial Court. The plaintiff had led entire evidence whereafter an application was moved by the plaintiff that though, he had appeared as a witness, no cross-examination had been effected on him and thus, cross-examination was required to be effected. This request of the respondent-plaintiff was allowed subject to payment of costs. This order of 11.8.2014 passed by the lower Court is under challenge by invoking supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) It is claimed by the petitioners that since evidence of the parties had been concluded and the suit was at the final stage, the application for cross-examination of the plaintiff could not have been allowed as it was filed only with a purpose to fill-in the lacunas left by the plaintiff in its case. Support has been sought from a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Bagai Construction Thr. its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai Vs. M/s Gupta Building Material Store [Civil Appeal No. 1787 of 2013 decided on 22.02.2013], wherein inter-alia, application for recalling of a witness to put certain documents to him in his crossexamnination, had been moved. It was a case of recall of witness when entire testimony of the said witness had been recorded.;