Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1. CM No.22443-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case. Defendant No.2-Col. Bhag Singh VSM (Retd.) has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 19.07.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh as well as statement in examination-in-chief dated 24.05.2010 Annexure P-2 made by Lt.Col. R.P.S. Randhawa (Retd.) as PW-1. Suit has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 against respondent Nos.3 to 13 and the petitioner. Defendant No.1/respondent No.3 is Indian Ex. Servicemen League, Punjab and Chandigarh. It has been sued through its Secretary Lt. Col. R.P.S. Randhawa (Retd.), who has also been impleaded in his individual capacity as defendant No.6/respondent No.7. Election of defendant Nos.2 to 13 as office bearers of defendant No.l is under challenge in the suit. The plaintiffs have examined Lt. Col. R.P.S. Randhawa (Retd.) as their witness as PW-1. He brought summoned records pertaining to defendant No.1-Indian Ex-servicemen League, Punjab and Chandigarh and proved the same. He also stated that nomination forms Ex.P-12 to P-22 were not withdrawn by any of the candidates, who submitted the same. He also deposed that no voting had taken place for electing the office bearers and no elections were held on 14.09.2008 and the list which was already prepared was read out. Cross-examination of the witness was deferred on request of counsel for the defendants. On 19.07.2010, the witness appeared for crossexamination, when counsel representing defendant Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 12 raised objection to the examination of the aforesaid witness. The said objection has been overruled by the trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.2 has preferred the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contented that plaintiffs could not have examined defendant No.6 as plaintiffs witness. It was also contended that defendant No.1- Indian Exservicemen League, Punjab and Chandigarh has also been sued through defendant No.6 as Secretary and for this reason as well, defendant No.6 could not be examined as witness of the plaintiffs. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. It was also contended that defendant No.1- Indian Exservicemen League, Punjab and Chandigarh has also been sued through defendant No.6 as Secretary and for this reason as well, defendant No.6 could not be examined as witness of the plaintiffs. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Amitabha Sen v. Sports World International, l 2009(2) ISJ (Banking) 11 and judgment of Mysore High Court in the case of Mallangowda and others v. Gavisiddangowda and another, 2 AIR 1959 Mysore 194. 4. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. In fact, judgment in the case of Dr. Amitabha Sen (supra) goes against the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. It was observed therein that there is no bar to a party seeking summoning of another party in the same suit as witness, but it should be permitted only if the application is bona fide and is not vexatious or abuse of process of law. In the instant case, defendant No.6, who has been summoned as witness by the plaintiffs did not object to appearing as witness of the plaintiffs. Consequently, there was no bar to examination of defendant No.6 as witness of the plaintiffs. Position might have been somewhat different if defendant No.6 had objected to his summoning as witness of the plaintiffs. However, if defendant No.6 had no objection to his appearance as witness of the plaintiffs, the trial Court had no, season to disallow his examination as witness of the plaintiffs. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that defendant No.6 has produced the record of defendant No.1, although the said record was not supposed to be in custody of defendant No.6. However, if defendant No.6 had stolen the record of defendant No.l as sought to be suggested by counsel for the petitioner, obviously the petitioner would be at liberty to take any action that may be permissible under the law. However, suffice it to mention that defendant No.l has been sued through defendant No.6 as Secretary. Petitioners case is that defendant No.6 has since been expelled from defendant No. 1. I need not comment anything on this submission. Defendant No.6 was summoned with records and he produced the records. The question whether he has stolen it or not, is not relevant for the purpose of this revision petition. Petitioners case is that defendant No.6 has since been expelled from defendant No. 1. I need not comment anything on this submission. Defendant No.6 was summoned with records and he produced the records. The question whether he has stolen it or not, is not relevant for the purpose of this revision petition. It may be added that the petitioner has not disputed the genuineness of the documents produced by defendant No.6 while appearing in the witness box. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised objection to last sentence of examination-in-chief of the witness, submitting that the witness has made false statement. However, this contention is not within the purview of the instant revision petition. The petitioner is at liberty to impeach the credibility of the witness by cross examination and also to lead evidence to rebut the same. Whether the said statement is true or false is not to be adjudicated in the instant revision petition, but is to be adjudicated upon by the trial Court at the time of final decision of the suit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that counsel for the plaintiffs also represented defendant Nos.1 and 6 in the trial Court, although this is not permissible. It was submitted that Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate was not present in the trial Court during the entire proceedings. However, this contention is not borne out from the impugned record which depicts that the plaintiffs were represented by Mr. Harsh Bhardwaj, Advocate whereas defendant Nos.l, 3, 6, 8 and 13 were represented by Rajesh Verma, Advocate in the trial Court. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the revision petition which appears to be misconceived. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.