C.R. No.8125 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8125 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.12.2010 Ajaib Singh .....Petitioner Versus Gurbachan Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta , Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Ajaib Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 07.09.2010 Annexure P-1 and order dated 06.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh. Plaintiff-petitioner has filed suit against defendants/respondents for specific performance of agreement to sell and ancillary reliefs. On 07.09.2010, the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence and it was last opportunity. Plaintiff's three witnesses namely Sadhu Singh PW-1, Rachan Singh PW-2 and Som Nath PW-3 have already made their statements in examination-in- chief by way of affidavits on 06.03.2007 and, their cross-examination was deferred to 11.09.2007. Ultimately, on 07.09.2010, plaintiff and his counsel appeared in the trial Court at 2:15 PM after the case was repeatedly called. The plaintiff came out with a false excuse that he had noted the date of hearing as 26.10.2010 and he happened to be present in the Court on 07.09.2010 in connection with some other C.R. No.8125 of 2010 -2- case. However, this excuse was found to be false on perusal of diary of counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner which had cuttings and overwritings. It is highly unfortunate that the plaintiff came out with such false plea and the same was apparently being supported by his counsel in the trial Court by making cuttings and overwritings in his diary. Be that as it may, on 07.09.2010, except for the plaintiff who was present, his no other witness was present for cross-examination. However, there was paucity of time with the Court and the case was adjourned to 08.09.2010 for examination of the plaintiff only whereas other evidence of the plaintiff was closed vide order dated 07.09.2010 Annexure P-1. On 08.09.2010, examination-in-chief of the plaintiff was recorded by way of affidavit and his cross-examination was deferred on the request of the plaintiff and the case was adjourned to 22.09.2010 for the same. Rachan Singh PW-2 was also present on 08.09.2010 and the plaintiff wanted cross-examination of Rachan Singh also to be recorded. The case was adjourned to 22.09.2010 for hearing arguments on the point whether Rachan Singh could be permitted to appear for cross-examination. Plaintiff also moved application Annexure P-3 dated 08.09.2010 for recording cross-examination of Rachan Singh PW-2. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.10.2010 Annexure P-4 declined the prayer of plaintiff for cross- examination of Rachan Singh PW-2. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and C.R. No.8125 of 2010 -3- perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for cross- examination of Rachan Singh PW-2 on payment of costs. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. As noticed hereinbefore, the plaintiff-petitioner came out with a false version on 07.09.2010 that he had been informed wrong date of hearing in the suit. This version was rightly found to be false by the trial Court as per observations made in both the impugned orders. It is also mentioned in order Annexure P-4 that plaintiff has been granted 10 effective opportunities for his evidence. However, it has to be noticed that on 06.03.2007, examination-in-chief of Rachan Singh PW-2 was recorded. This witness was also present on 08.09.2010 as revealed by order Annexure P-2 of the trial Court. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the plaintiff-petitioner is granted another opportunity to produce Rachan Singh PW-2 for cross-examination on payment of heavy costs. The petitioner has to be subjected to heavy costs for three reasons. Firstly, he was granted numerous opportunities for his evidence. Secondly, he made attempt to secure adjournment on 07.09.2010 by making false submission. Thirdly, even the instant revision petition has been filed after delay of two months. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents from the expenses which they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the C.R. No.8125 of 2010 -4- revision petition if notice of revision petition is issued to them. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to produce Rachan Singh PW-2 for cross-examination and also to tender documentary evidence if any at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.10000/- as costs precedent. 14.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE