Civil Revision No. 1525 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1525 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.3.2009 Ajit Singh ..... Petitioner vs Jaswinder Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Amandeep Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 24.2.2009 passed by the learned Court below, whereby cross-examination of the DWs was ordered to be closed. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on 9.1.2003. She submitted that after completion of pleadings the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence which was completed on 29.7.2008. The evidence of the defendants was started on 19.9.2008. On 7.1.2009, the defendants examined three witnesses and the case was adjourned to 24.2.2009 for their cross- examination by the petitioner/plaintiff. On the said date of hearing, as counsel for the petitioner was busy in some other court and request for pass over could not be conveyed, the learned court below passed the aforesaid impugned order denying the cross-examination of the DWs. She submitted that in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, he will cross- examine all the DWs examined by the defendants. The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. It is stated by the learned counsel that the case is fixed for today before the learned court below. Civil Revision No. 1525 of 2009 (2) From the facts stated above, I find that the cause shown by the petitioner for permitting him one opportunity to cross-examine the DWs already examined by the defendants is made out. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that it would be in the interest of justice in case the petitioner is granted one opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the defendants on the date to be fixed by the trial court. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the respondents/defendants. For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.2.2009 is set aside. 19.3.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge