IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 29522-23-CII of 2010 and Civil Revision No. 2504 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: March 01, 2011 Gurmail Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. Baljinder Kaur and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent No.1. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) CM No. 29522-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 29523-CII of 2010 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The amended petition is taken on record. C.R. No. 2504 of 2010 This petition assails the order dated 13.8.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana, whereby the application of the petitioner- defendant for re-calling the witness for cross examination was dismissed. From the zimni orders it appears that trial court was not correct in setting the record in order and dis-allowing the petitioners to cross examine Balwant Rai as a result of which, their valuable rights have been defeated. The law is hand maid of administration of justice and is not to thwart it by adopting the cut short procedure for trial while dis-allowing the defendant to cross examine the witness that all for no fault on their (petitioners) part. Any delay on their part could be compensated with costs. In the given circumstances, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to provide opportunity to cross examine Balwant Rai. The judgment, if any, which could be placed reliance is State of Punjab and Civil Revision No. 2504 of 2010 -2- *** others vs. Ajmer Singh 2009 (3) Civil Court Cases 474 (P&H) wherein it was observed as under :- “5. Time management has been a new mantra in the management jargon and in several of the workshops, it is discussed at length where the Presiding Officers are guided as to how they shall effectively control the board and prevent waste of time. The Court refusing an adjournment on its observation that one party has taken several adjournments are probably are instances where the Court finds that there is no scope for exercising the discretion in favour of the party seeking for an adjournment for production of witnesses. If it is only a matter of discretion and guided by sound judicial principles there ought not to be any ground for intervention in revision. It is only because such type of the orders in revision that I have thought it necessary to put the specific instances on how the matter has disposed of and how parties are needlessly coming to this Court only to secure an order for reopening the case and adducing some more evidence. 6. Even if an order is passed directing the closure of evidence, it can never be said to be irretrievably sealed for all purposes. Instances may arise, when the party shows reason for his inability to give evidence and the Court on a proper consideration of facts could reopen the case which is closed. This power to reopen is an inherent powers with the Court shall exercise under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.” In view of the aforesaid judgment, the court in a fit and proper case and with a view that justice should not be scuttled at the very threshold before it travels in to the hierarchy of court by way of appeal, could reconsider the matter to provide an opportunity to cross-examine a witness, but court should have re-considered the issue, but the court for the reasons best known to it has not considered the same. Any way, in order to save time of the court while turning the order as perverse and against facts, I Civil Revision No. 2504 of 2010 -3- *** accept this petition, set aside the impugned order and direct the trial court to allow the defendants to cross examine Balwant Rai subject to payment of `2000/- as costs. The trial court should take care that the case should not linger on and decide the same within three months positively. March 01, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge