C. R. No. 4365 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4365 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 21, 2010 Hansi Geeta Bhawan Trust, Hansi .... Petitioner Vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Kanya Varisth Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Hansi and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Hansi Geeta Bhawan Trust, Hansi, through its Chairman Devender Kumar Garg, has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 10.06.2010 (Annexure P-7), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi, whereby cross-examination of the plaintiff's Chairman Devender Kumar Garg as PW-2 and plaintiff's other witness Manager Ramji Singh as PW-1 has been closed by court order. This case depicts under how much pressure Judicial Officers in the trial courts have to function. Petitioner's Chairman came from Calcutta C. R. No. 4365 of 2010 2 to appear as witness at Hansi and on his request, the case was taken up for day to day hearing and was adjourned from 09.06.2010 to 10.06.2010 for his cross-examination. The bone of contention is that according to the observation of the Presiding Officer made in Annexure P-6 (partly recorded cross-examination of the witness), the witness had been personally directed by the Officer on 09.06.2010 (with oral consent of the witness) to produce audit reports, cash book and ledger on 10.06.2010 for the purpose of cross- examination, but the witness did not bring the same on the plea that he had not been asked to bring the same. Learned Presiding Officer has observed that the witness was intentionally telling a pure lie on this aspect. On account of this, both the witnesses of the plaintiff refused to submit themselves for cross-examination, compelling the trial court to close their cross-examination by impugned order (Annexure P-7). The plaintiff thereafter moved application for transfer of the suit from the Court of the aforesaid Officer to some other Court and the said transfer application is stated to be pending before learned District Judge, Hisar. Pursuant to order of the preceding date, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought instructions and accordingly states that both the aforesaid witnesses are ready and willing to tender unqualified apology in the trial court, where the suit is presently pending. In view thereof, without entering into any controversy, although prima facie observation of the Judicial Officer has to be given due weight, I am inclined to allow another C. R. No. 4365 of 2010 3 opportunity to the plaintiff's both witnesses to submit themselves for further cross-examination, along with the relevant record. I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to respondents so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and to save the respondents of the expenses, which they might have to incur, if notice of the instant revision petition is issued to them. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is disposed of with the direction that both the aforesaid witnesses of the plaintiff shall be permitted by the trial court to be cross-examined, subject to the condition precedent that both the witnesses shall separately tender written apology to the Judicial Officer, in whose Court the case is now pending, irrespective of whether the case is transferred from his Court or not, and subject to the further condition that the witnesses shall bring the relevant record mentioned herein above. Observations made by the trial court in Annexure P-6 shall have no bearing on the merits of the suit. July 21, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE