IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.417 of 2011. _______________________________________________________ Shri Rattan Lal son of late Shri Rulia, son of Shri Mangta, resident of village and Mauja Bankala, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP. ….Petitioner. Versus Shri Balaru son of late Shri Rulia, son of Shri Mangta, resident of village and Mauja Bankala, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP. .…Respondent. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nahan. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent: Nemo. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). Respondent stands duly served, but none appeared. Hence heard ex-parte. 2. The main grouse of the petitioner in this petition is that on the day of filing the affidavit in evidence the respondent was perfectly alright, but when he was to be cross-examined an application under Order 18 Rule 4 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved alleging that he was unwell 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - thus unable to attend the Court and requested for his cross-examination by appointing a Local Commissioner, despite objection, the request was allowed. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is quite alright and is in a position to attend the Court; but however, if he is to be cross-examined at his residence by the Local Commissioner, the petitioner shall feel satisfied if the expenses of his Counsel be defrayed by the respondent. 3. In view of the above situation, the impugned order dated 12.10.2011 is modified to the extent that the learned trial Court shall assess the reasonable fee of the petitioner’s Counsel to facilitate him to cross-examine the respondent. The fee shall be paid/ deposited by the respondent. 4. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of. 5. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending application shall also stand disposed of. December 6, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.