- (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners-defendants have implored to quash and set-aside the order dated 27th July, 2007, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dantaramgarh, District Sikar dismissed the application of the defendants-petitioners, wherein they had prayed to recall the witness PW-1 Ramji Lal.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that late Laxmi Narayan filed a civil suit against the petitioners and non petitioners no. 2 to 11 stating therein that plaintiff and defendants no. 8 to 13 were the brothers constituting a joint Hindu Family. It was stated that the property in question was let out to the defendant Ganpat Lal. The suit was filed for arrears of rent and eviction. During the pendency of the suit, the witnesses of the plaintiff were examined. Thereafter on 15th September, 2006, the petitioners-defendants filed an application in the Court imploring that the witness PW-1 Ram Ji Lal, who had already been examined, be summoned again for the purpose of re cross-examination. The learned trial court having considered all the facts and circumstances and critically analyzed the matter ad-longum, observed that the documents, which he wanted to refer during cross-examination, were already existing on record, they were legible and were tangibly understood by the learned counsel for the respondents. The cross-examination of the witness had already been completed and there was no occasion to re-summon the said witness PW-1 Ram Ji Lal for the purpose of re cross-examination. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order, it is revealed that PW-1 Ram Jai Lal had already been subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants took me through Rule 37 of General Rule (Civil) and canvassed that every document produced by a party or his witness not written in English or Hindi shall be required to be accompanied with correct translation of the said document into Hindi written in Devnagari script, but no correct translation of the said document was accompanied with the same. Thus, compliance of Rule 37 of General Rule (Civil) was not made by the plaintiff-respondents. Hence, the witness PW-1 Ram Ji Lal was necessarily required to be re-summoned for the purpose of re-cross-examination as the learned counsel did not understand the language of the document in question. The learned trial court is found to have dismissed the application on the ground that this objection was never raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that the document in question was not legible and he was not able to understand the same. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants completed his cross-examination and further there was no occasion to re-summon or to recall PW-1 Ram Ji Lal, who had attained the age of 82 years for the purpose of re cross-examination. Now, PW-1 Ram Ji Lal is said to have died during the pendency of this writ petition. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to this effect that PW-1 Ramji Lal was not subjected to cross-examination and thus his statement given in examination-in-chief through an affidavit could not be read against the petitioner, is not sustainable. His argument is found to be contrary to material on record. The fact is that PW-1 Ramji Lal was subjected to cross-examination and his cross-examination was completed by petitioner's counsel. Thus, the impugned order rendered by the learned trial court is found to be just and proper. I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the same. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners has failed to convince me to take a view contrary to that of the view taken by the learned trial court. Thus, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.;