JUDGMENT Mr. S.P. Bangarh, J (Oral):- The petitioner, herein, is a defendant in civil suit No. 173 of 27.07.2010, that has been filed by the respondent, herein, before the trial Court for specific performance of contract dated 12.07.2006 in respect of the suit land, more fully described in Annexure P-4. 2. PW-1 and PW-2 , although cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner, yet it is his case that many questions were asked by his advocate from these witnesses during cross-examination but those were declined by the trial Court. So, the petitioner filed application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling of witnesses namely Kulbhushan Dutta as PW-1 and Satnam Singh as PW-2. These witnesses supra were examined on 27.11.2013. 3. It is his case, that Kulbhushan Dutta (PW-1) is a scribe and at the time of his cross-examination, many questions were asked by his advocate, but those were declined by the Court. Similarly, at the time of cross-examination of Satnam Singh (PW-2) many important questions put to him during cross-examination were ordered to be declined by the trial Court. So, through this application, recall of the witnesses supra was sought for further cross-examination. 4. This application was opposed by the respondent by filing written reply, thereto, averring, therein, that at the time of crossexamination of two witnesses, the trial Court applied its judicial mind and disallowed the questions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. So, prayer for dismissal of application was, thus, made. 5. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court vide impugned order dated 05.10.2013, dismissed the application, under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that was filed by the petitioner, herein. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the relevant questions were put to Kulbhushan Dutta (PW-1) and Satnam Singh (PW-2) during the cross-examination, by the counsel for the petitioner, but those questions were not allowed to be put and were declined by the trial Court and this act has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and permission of putting certain questions to the witnesses (supra) will go to the root of the defence, therefore, these witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 be ordered to be recalled for further cross-examination. 7. Thoughtful consideration has been given to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. 7. Thoughtful consideration has been given to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. As per his own case, many questions were asked by the counsel for the petitioner, but those were declined by the trial Court. When once the trial Court disallowed certain questions, how, those questions can be allowed to be put in further cross-examination of witnesses. Besides, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine Kulbhushan Dutta (PW-1) and Satnam Singh (PW- 2) through his counsel and that opportunity was exhausted by his counsel. Now at his asking, the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW- 2 cannot be allowed to be opened. 9. The trial Court has already declined those questions to be put to PW-1 and PW-2, that were not relevant. Now those questions cannot be allowed to be put in further cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 by allowing the application, that was dismissed vide impugned order by the trial Court. 10. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, that must be upheld and affirmed. 11. Resultantly, the instant revision fails, and is, hereby, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------