C.R. No.5391 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5391 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.08.2010 Gurnam Singh .……Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff Gurnam Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 14.08.2010 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar thereby dismissing application of petitioner-plaintiff for permitting his cross-examination to be recorded. Plaintiff-petitioner appeared in the witness box and his examination-in-chief was recorded. Cross-examination was deferred and was never recorded thereafter. Ultimately evidence of the plaintiff was closed by Court order dated 23.05.2009. Defendants thereafter led evidence and closed their evidence. It was at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments that the plaintiff-petitioner moved application (Annexure P-1) for permitting his cross-examination to be recorded. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after cross- examination of the petitioner was deferred, application was moved for re- C.R. No.5391 of 2010 -2- examination and after several dates of hearing, when the said application remained pending, the application was ultimately withdrawn and on account of this, the plaintiff could not be cross-examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for his cross- examination. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. If cross- examination of the plaintiff is not recorded, his examination-in-chief cannot be read in evidence and, therefore, case of the plaintiff would fail. The impugned order would thus have drastic consequences for the plaintiff petitioner. In my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if one opportunity is granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for his cross-examination on payment of costs. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents from the expenses which they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice of revision petition is issued to them. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order Annexure P-3 passed by the trial Court is set aside and application Annexure P-1 moved by the plaintiff-petitioner in the trial Court is allowed and the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to get his cross-examination recorded, on payment of Rs.2500/- as costs precedent. Only one opportunity shall be granted by the trial Court to the plaintiff-petitioner, to appear for his cross-examination. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 26.08.2010 A. Kaundal