IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3749 of 2011 Date of decision: 2.6.2011 Gurdial Singh … Petitioner versus Ramesh Chand another ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. M.S.Uppal, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for recovery, titled Gurdial Singh v. Ramesh Chand and another. He is aggrieved with order dated 6.4.2010 passed by the Civil Judge(Jr.Division), Ludhiana, by virtue of which his evidence was closed by order of the Court and order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the same Court by dint of which his application for allowing the plaintiff to appear as a witness for the purpose of cross-examination, has been dismissed. Hence, this revision. Heard. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had tendered his affidavit in evidence on the first date i.e. 15.10.2009 but subsequently committed default by not presenting himself for cross-examination or producing any other witness. Counsel for the petitioner seeks only one opportunity and the petitioner is ready to compensate the opposite party for the said default. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for recovery and for want of his cross-examination by the opposite side, he will suffer an irreparable loss. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant to enhance it and not to scuttle the same. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the plaintiff- petitioner for the purpose of his cross-examination. This order, however C.R. No. 3749 of 2011 -2- shall be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff-petitioner to the opposite side before the trial Court. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. June 02, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE