JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused non-petitioners. 2. A sessions case instituted on complaint filed by the petitioner is pending trial against accused persons in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu. During trial the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.RC. wherein he made a request to call and examine Bhagwana Ram Patwari and Bheru Singh Girdawar. This application was opposed by the accused persons. Having heard both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated June 4, 2003. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has moved this revision petition. 3. The application of the petitioner was rejected by Addl. Sessions Judge on the grounds that Bhagwana Ram had already been examined in cross case No. 41/2001 State v. Hanuman & Others as PW 20 and certified copy of the statement is on the file of this case. Apart from that, certified copies r Jamabandhi and Khasra Girdwari are on the file and these documents have been got executed by the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the just decision of the case it is essential to call and examine Bhagwana Ram Patwari who has stated in cross case that the disputed land is in possession of the complainant party. Learned counsel further submits that the statement recorded in cross case cannot be taken into consideration in this case unless and until Bhagwana Ram Patwari is examined as witness in this case. It has also been submitted by learned counsel that the evidence of Girdawar is also essential for the just decision of the case, therefore, the revision petition be allowed. Learned counsel for the accused non-petitioners submits that the application was moved by the petitioner with the intention to delay the disposal of the case and the order of the trial Court is perfectly just and proper, hence, the revision petition be dismissed. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the counsel and have also perused the impugned order as well as the statement of Bhagwana Ram Patwari recorded in cross case wherein it has been stated by him that the disputed land is in possession of Gyarsi Lal S/o Jhootha Ram. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the counsel and have also perused the impugned order as well as the statement of Bhagwana Ram Patwari recorded in cross case wherein it has been stated by him that the disputed land is in possession of Gyarsi Lal S/o Jhootha Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Gyarsi Lal is the member of the complainants family. 6. In view of this statement, I am of the opinion that it is essential for the just decision of the case to call and examine Bhagwana Ram Patwari as prosecution witness. His statement which has been recorded in cross case cannot be read in evidence in this case. So far as Girdawar is concerned, his evidence is not at all essential for the just decision of the case. In these circumstances, this petition deserves to be allowed in part. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu is directed to summon and examine Bhagwana Ram Patwari as prosecution witness. The impugned order dated 4.6.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu stands modified accordingly.Revision Petition allowed in part. *******