Civil Revision No. 7642 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7642 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 12th, 2011 ASI Kuldip Singh .... Petitioner Versus The New Sutlej Transport Co. Limited and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Hemender Goswami, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by Kuldip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, the plaintiff, under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.7.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by order of the court. The petitioner had brought a suit for recovery of Rs. ten lakhs as compensation as damages for the injury caused to his reputation on account of the uncalled for material published by the respondents, which lowered his reputation in the eyes of the public. The said suit was pending for 19.7.2011 for evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not bring his evidence on the said date and his learned counsel prayed for an adjournment. The file revealed to learned trial court that on 1.6.2011, the Civil Revision No. 7642 of 2011 2 .. plaintiff tendered affidavit of Sukhwant Singh (PW-3) and the witness did not come present for facing cross-examination. It was further noticed that on 19.5.2011, learned counsel for the plaintiff suffered statement that he will conclude his evidence on the next date of hearing, failing which his evidence may be deemed to be closed. In view of that statement and for the fact that the plaintiff has availed many opportunities, learned trial court found no ground to have been made out for adjournment of the case for evidence of the plaintiff. Hence, his evidence was closed by order of the court. I have heard Mr. Hemender Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the witness had been in attendance in the court on 1.6.2011 and his cross examination was deferred after taking his affidavit as his examination-in- chief. According to him, on 19.7.2011, the date to which his cross- examination was deferred, there was some death in the relation of Sukhwant Singh (PW-3) and he could not come to the court as he had to go to attend the last rites of a relation. He has submitted that these facts were brought to the notice of learned trial court, but learned trial court has wrongly refused to grant the adjournment. There is no denial to the fact that on 19.5.2011, learned counsel for the plaintiff had made a statement that he would conclude his evidence on the next date, failing which the same may be deemed to be closed. Standing true to his promise, he had brought the witness, named, Sukhwant Singh and had tendered his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. The order dated 1.6.2011 does not speak of the Civil Revision No. 7642 of 2011 3 .. reason for deferring the cross-examination of the witness. Sukhwant Singh is a witness of the plaintiff and he is not plaintiff himself. If there was some demise in the relations of the witness, he cannot be expected to come to the court on that date. The situation arising therefrom was such in which ignoring the previous statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff, learned trial court should have granted an adjournment, may be of short duration for cross-examination of Sukhwant Singh. The circumstances, therefore, show that the plaintiff is not at all at fault for non-appearance of Sukhwant Singh in the court on 19.7.2011. However, the plaintiff had already availed a number of opportunities and he was not vigilant in pursuing his case. The precious time of the defendants was at least wasted for which they are to be compensated. In these circumstances, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to give one effective opportunity to the plaintiff to produce his witness, Sukhwant Singh, in the witness box at responsibility. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 12th, 2011 som