C.R.No.4448 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4448 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.7.2011 Charan Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Karamjit Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. H.P.S Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Plaintiff-petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.6.2011 (P.1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nabha whereby the cross examination of DWs examined by the defendant-respondent No.1 had been ordered to be treated as Nil. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.572-T dated 10.9.2007 for declaration to the effect that Maruti Car Alto as described in head note of the plaint is the Istridhan of the proforma defendant/respondent No.3 Gurmeet Kaur and the defendant- respondent No.1 has no concern with the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside. It is further argued that in case, the plaintiff- petitioner is not allowed to cross examine the DWs, his case will be materially prejudiced. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the C.R.No.4448 of 2011 #2# same deserves dismissal. It will be relevant to reproduce the impugned order dated 1.6.2011 passed by the learned trial Court, which reads as under: “DWs Bant Singh, Dalel Singh and Bachan Singh are present. Case called several times since morning for cross examination of above said Dws but Sh. Makhan Singh, Adv has failed to cross-examine all these Dws and requested for adjournment. Request is considered. However perusal of the file reveals that all these Dws very remained present on each date of hearing and ld counsel for the plaintiff Sh. Makhan Singh did not cross examine all these Dws. Today one last opportunity was granted to the counsel for the plaintiff to cross-examine Dws Bant Singh, Dalel Singh and Bachan Singh but he has not conduct the cross of above said Dws. As such cross of Dws Bant Singh, Dalel Singh and Bachan Singh is hereby treated as nil. Now case is adjourned to 11.6.2011 for remaining evidence of the defendant subject to last chance.” Thereafter, the case came up for hearing before the learned trial Court on 11.6.2011 and following order was passed on that day: “Sh. H.S. Anand, Adv closed his defendant's evidence on behalf of def.no.1. Now to come up on 27.7.11 for Dws subject to last chance.” A perusal of impugned order dated 1.6.2011 shows that the learned trial Court has treated the cross examination of Dws Bant Singh, Dalel Singh and Bachan Singh examined on behalf of defendant-respondent No.1 as nil and the case was adjourned to 11.6.2011. On 11.6.2011, the evidence on behalf of defendant No.1 was closed and the case was adjourned to 27.7.2011 for the evidence remaining defendants as a last chance. Thus, when evidence of defendant No.1 is already closed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.6.2011 and that order is not under C.R.No.4448 of 2011 #3# challenge by the plaintiff-petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner for cross examination of the defendant's witnesses referred above cannot be accepted and the same is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. Even otherwise on merit also, the record reveals that four effective opportunities on different dates i.e 17.1.2011, 4.2.2011, 23.3.2011, 30.3.2011 were afforded to the plaintiff-petitioner to cross examine the Dws but he failed to do so on one pretext or the other. In my opinion, learned trial Court has already afforded sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to cross examine the DWs before passing the impugned order and has rightly treated the cross examination of DWs Bant Singh, Dalel Singh, Bachan Singh as nil. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 1.6.2011 (P.1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nabha below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. July 25, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE