C. R. No. 2258 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2258 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 24, 2009 Sohan Lal .... Petitioner Vs. Ramesh Chander and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Dhirender Chopra, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by defendant no.11 impugning order dated 17.04.2009 of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar (Annexure P-1), whereby application moved by defendant no.10 (respondent no.11 herein) and defendant no.11 (petitioner herein) for recalling of Rajiv Kumar – legal representative of plaintiff-respondent no.1, for cross-examination on behalf of defendants no.10 and 11, has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Cross examination of PW Rajiv Kumar was conducted on 12.12.2007. Counsel for defendants no.4, 5 and 7 and counsel for defendants no.8 and 9 cross-examined the said witness. Counsel for C. R. No. 2258 of 2009 2 defendants no.10 and 11 was also given opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, but the said counsel stated that no cross-examination was to be conducted. At the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments, defendants no.10 and 11 moved application for recalling the said witness for cross-examination on their behalf. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that counsel for defendants no.10 and 11, under mistaken belief that Rajiv Kumar was a formal witness, did not cross-examine that witness, but in fact, Rajiv Kumar being legal representative of the plaintiff, was material witness required to be cross-examined on behalf of defendants no.10 and 11. It is contended that on account of inadvertent and unintentional lapse on the part of the counsel, the witness could not be cross-examined on behalf of defendants no.10 and 11. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice require that one opportunity should be granted to defendants no.10 and 11 to cross-examine the witness Rajiv Kumar, on payment of heavy cost. I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to plaintiff-respondent no.1 so as to avoid further delay and to save him of the expenses of engaging counsel for the revision petition. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 17.04.2009 (Annexure P-1) of learned trial court is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner and respondent no.11 herein i.e. defendants no.10 and 11 shall be granted only one opportunity more for cross-examination of PW Rajiv Kumar, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost. April 24, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE C. R. No. 2258 of 2009 3