C.R. No.7946 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7946 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.12.2010 Kulwant Singh .....Petitioner Versus Jaswinder Singh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff Kulwant Singh, aggrieved by order dated 25.09.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . Examination-in-chief of plaintiff and his one more witness Braham Dev was recorded on 24.08.2009 by way of affidavits and their cross-examination was deferred to different dates on request of counsel for defendant-respondent. Ultimately, the case was fixed for 25.09.2010 for their cross-examination and other evidence of the plaintiff. On that day plaintiff's two witnesses Bharam Dev and Surinder Pal Sood were present. Examination-in-chief of Bharam Dev already stood recorded on 24.08.2009 whereas Surinder Pal Sood was to be examined as witness. However, counsel for defendant-respondent prayed for adjournment having remained busy in some other case. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 25.09.2010 closed the evidence of plaintiff by Court order (being last opportunity), except for cross-examination of the aforesaid two witnesses for which the case was adjourned to 13.01.2011. C.R. No.7946 of 2010 -2- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The impugned order is patently illegal and unsustainable and suffers from jurisdictional error. The case was adjourned from 24.08.2009 to 06.01.2010, 24.03.2010, 25.03.2010, 04.08.2010 and 25.09.2010 for cross-examination of the plaintiff himself and also of PW Braham Dev, but every time, the case was adjourned on the request of counsel for defendant-respondent. Even on 25.09.2010, counsel for defendant-respondent did not cross-examine PW Braham Dev, who was present nor testimony of Surinder Pal Sood PW, who was also present could be recorded on account of non-availability of counsel for defendant-respondent. In spite thereof, learned trial Court closed the plaintiff's evidence by Court order except cross- examination of Braham Dev and Surinder Pal Sood. It is surprising that adjournments were being granted on request of counsel for defendant-respondent every time, but still the plaintiff has been penalized. Plaintiff's two witnesses, who were present, were also not examined/cross-examined on 25.09.2010 due to non-availability of counsel for the defendant-respondent, but still evidence of the plaintiff was closed merely because the plaintiff himself was not present for cross-examination. Even if the plaintiff himself had been present, he was also not to be cross-examined on that date due to non-availability of counsel for defendant-respondent. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for the trial Court for closing evidence of the plaintiff by Court order. Moreover, the case was adjourned by the trial Court to 13.01.2011 for cross-examination of plaintiff's two witnesses Braham Dev and Surinder Pal Sood (who C.R. No.7946 of 2010 -3- were present on 25.09.2010) and, therefore, there was no reason for closing other evidence of the plaintiff by Court order and for not permitting him to lead the other evidence on 13.01.2011, when two witnesses of the plaintiff were to be examined/cross-examined on that date. It is thus manifest that impugned order of the trial Court is patently illegal and unsustainable and suffers from jurisdictional error and requires to be set aside. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to defendant-respondent so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the case and also to save the respondent from the expenses which he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice of revision petition is issued to him. In view of the above, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to permit the plaintiff to lead his other evidence including his own cross-examination on 13.01.2011 at own responsibility in addition to examination/cross-examination of the two witnesses i.e Braham Dev and Surinder Pal Sood for which the case is fixed in the trial Court for the said date. 06.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE