Civil Revision No.364 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.364 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 19, 2011 Mohinder Pal Singh .....Petitioner v. Nachhattar Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.I.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 1.12.2010, Annexure P1, passed be learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jagraon, District Ludhiana, vide which application filed by petitioner-plaintiff for examination of hand writing and document expert was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that a suit for joint possession as joint owner of the land in dispute by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.11.2000 executed by respondent-defendant in favour of plaintiff was filed by him. Defendant filed written statement. Issues were framed. Evidence was adduced by plaintiff. Plaintiff examined PW1-Mohinderpal Singh, PW2- Surinder Kumar and PW3-Sudheer Kumar. Cross- examination was conducted by the defendant on PW2 and PW3. However, as defendant failed to cross-examine PW1- Mohinderpal Singh despite several opportunities, the cross-examination of PW1 was declared as `Nil' by learned trial Court. Against the said order, defendant filed revision petition before this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court granted one opportunity to him to cross-examine the said witness of the plaintiff and hence cross-examination was conducted on the said witness on behalf of the Civil Revision No.364 of 2011 (O&M) -2- defendant. Learned trial Court vide order dated 19.7.2010, adjourned the case for remaining evidence of the plaintiff for 16.8.2010. On 16.8.2010, one witness was examined and the case was adjourned to 4.9.2010 for remaining evidence of the plaintiff. On 4.9.2010, examination-in-chief of document expert was recorded and however, on the request of counsel for the defendant, his cross-examination was deferred and the witness was bound down for 13.9.2010. However, as on 13.9.2010, the Court was on leave, hence the case was adjourned to 1.10.2010, on which date the document expert was present and however, on the request of counsel for the defendant, cross-examination was deferred for 15.10.2010. On 15.10.2010 as well the document expert was present, however, on request of counsel for the defendant, the case was adjourned to 27.10.2010 for cross-examination. On 27.10.2010 as well document expert was present and however, at this stage, objection was taken on behalf of the defendant that the document expert cannot be examined, as oral evidence of the plaintiff was already closed by the counsel for the plaintiff and hence, application was filed by the present petitioner-plaintiff to allow him to examine the document expert as additional evidence, which was also declined by learned trial Court. Hence, in view of these facts, when examination-in-chief of document expert has already been recorded by learned trial Court and when several opportunities were obtained on behalf of the defendant to cross- examine him and the witness had come present on several dates, as detailed above, learned trial Court has committed illegality in not allowing this witness to be cross-examined by the defendant. Hence, the impugned order passed by learned trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to take into consideration the statement of document expert, already recorded, and the witness be directed to be cross-examined by the defendant. The present revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 19.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.364 of 2011 (O&M) -3-