C. R. No. 2806 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2806 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 08, 2010 Randeep Kaur and another .... Petitioners Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by defendants no.2 and 3 impugning order dated 22.03.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phul, thereby dismissing application moved by the petitioners for recalling PWs Gurcharan Singh and Sandeep Garg for further cross-examination. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 examined Gurcharan Singh and Sandeep Garg as witnesses on 02.03.2010 and the said witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the defendants. However, thereafter, defendants no.2 and 3 moved application Annexure P-1 dated 18.03.2010 seeking permission to recall the aforesaid two witnesses for further cross- examination, alleging that on 02.03.2010, when the said witnesses were C. R. No. 2806 of 2010 2 examined, original counsel for defendants no.2 and 3 had gone out of station and the proxy counsel, who cross-examined the witnesses, could not properly cross-examine them. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court has dismissed the petitioners' application observing that the application has been moved to prolong the disposal of the suit, but there has been no unnecessary delay in the trial of the suit, which was instituted on 31.07.2009 only i.e. less than a year ago. The petitioners also moved application Annexure P-1 on 18.03.2010 i.e. without any delay because the witnesses in question had been examined on 02.03.2010 only. Learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly prayed that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioners for further cross-examination of these two witnesses, on payment of cost. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention and find force therein. There has been no unnecessary delay in the trial of the suit. No other reason has been assigned by the trial court for dismissing the application moved by the petitioners. On the other hand, the said application was moved without any delay, much less unnecessary delay. Original counsel for the petitioners in the trial court was out of station when the aforesaid witnesses were examined and therefore, it appears that the witnesses could not be effectively cross-examined by the proxy counsel, C. R. No. 2806 of 2010 3 who was new in the profession. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioners for further cross-examination of these two witnesses, on payment of cost. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the plaintiff-respondent no.1 so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and to save plaintiff-respondent no.1 of the expenses, which he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice thereof is issued to him. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order Annexure P-2 passed by the trial court is set aside and application Annexure P-1 moved by the petitioners in the trial court is allowed. The trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioners for further cross-examination of the two witnesses namely Gurcharan Singh and Sandeep Garg, who have been examined by plaintiff-respondent no.1 as witnesses, subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as cost precedent. The plaintiff shall be responsible to produce the said witnesses in the Court and if need be, assistance of the Court may be taken, but expenses of the said witnesses shall be paid by the petitioners to the witnesses when they appear in the Court for further cross- examination. C. R. No. 2806 of 2010 4 July 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE