DARSHAN SINGH,J. - (1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 18.04.2016, vide which the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narwana, has allowed the application moved by respondent no.4 for recalling of petitioners witnesses.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent no. 4 has purchased the land in dispute from respondents no. 1 to 3 vide two separate sale deeds. Thus, he has stepped into the shoes of respondents no. 1 to 3 and has no independent right to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the petitioners. To support his contentions, he relied upon case Dhanna Singh v. Baljinder Kaur, 1997(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 701 : 1997(2) LJR 440. Thus, he contended that the impugned order is illegal.
(3.) I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.;