IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5809 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.09.2010 Ajit Singh Judge and others ........petitioners Versus Parshotam Singla and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate & Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ****** VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure P-5), which reads as under:- “Today the case was fixed for cross examination of witnesses of the plaintiff and the other evidence if any by him, however an application has been moved for adjournment of the case by Sh. S.D.Bansal advocate and Sh. Harpreet Singh advocate and is signed by Sh. S.D.Bansal advocate counsel for the defendants. As per this application, Mr. S.D.Bansal, advocate suddenly fall ill at about 4 pm on 30.08.2010 and his blood pressure & sugar level shot up alarmingly whereby he was rushed to Mohali Medical Centre from he was discharged and was advised for two days bed rest & application is accompanied with the cause list of 30.08.2010 and the OPD ticket of Mohali Medical Centre. This application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the plaintiff Sh. S.K.Jain Advocate contending that in OPD ticket the blood Civil Revision No.5809 of 2010 -2- pressure is recorded 140/100 which cannot be considered to be alarming. Moreover this was only a ploy not to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff & to harass them so that they may not turn up on one stage having been fed up with repeated coming to the court & going back without deposing and that if on someday witnesses is not present, the local counsel will inform Sh. S.D.Bansal Advocate and he will come on that day stating that he is present for cross examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff & will get passed an adverse order on this strong opposition & after going through the file, it was found that earlier also, such applications have been moved. Also on the previous date i.e. 30/08/2010 an application was moved on behalf of Sh.S.D.Bansal, Advocate that he cannot come to the court today being busy in a matter pending before the Hon'ble High Court which may take entire day, which was declined and after that he has moved this application. Obviously the objection raised by the opposite counsel is not without ground. Therefore, the objection is accepted particularly because there are two other Advocates who are representing these defendants and on the previous date of hearing one other counsel Sh. Kamal Nijhawan, Advocate had also appeared on behalf of defendant No.1. Though he is not present today but Mr. Harpreet Singh & Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate are present for the defendants and have stated at bar they are representing all the defendants & they can very well crossed examined these witnesses, therefore, this application is declined & they are directed to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiffs. When learned counsel for the defendant Sh. Harpreet Singh & Sh. Pardeep Kumar advocates were asked to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff, they made a statement that Sh. S.D.Bansal is indisposed on account of medical advice and they are simply assisting him and were present in the Court to inform about his condition. He is main counsel & was cross examining the witnesses. In his absence they have no instruction to cross examine the witnesses. I have gone through the file and found that there is Civil Revision No.5809 of 2010 -3- no power of attorney of Sh. Harpreet Singh Advocate on the file & he himself has gone through the file with the permission of the Court and found it was not there, though he had earlier stated that he had filed Power of Attorney. However Power of Attorney of Mr. Pardeep Kumar Rana is on the file and I have gone through the same to find that it has not been specifically mentioned therein, if he was engaged for any specific purpose and not to cross examination of the witnesses of the plaintiffs. Therefore objection taken by them cannot be sustained and they are directed to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiffs. The witnesses PW-7 Sunil Kumar Jain, Deed writer, PW-9 Parshotam Singla, PW-11 Om Prakash Bansal and PW-12 Kamal Mahajan, who were present, were called upon to come and depose. When the witnesses had come again an opportunity was given to these counsel if they want to cross-examine these witnesses but they did not do so. Therefore the cross-examination upon these witnesses PW-7 Sunil Kumar Jain, Deed Writer, PW-8 Parshotam Singla, PW-11 Om Prakash Bansal and PW-12 Kamal Mahajan is recorded as nil after having been given an opportunity to the other party. At this stage learned counsel for the plaintiff requested that one witness was yet to come and he will be produced in the after lunch session and he also wants to produce some documents. As far as the witness who has to come yet is concerned learned counsel for the plaintiff is at liberty to produce him, but it is made clear, that his cross examination will not be treated as nil, because it was only after the passing these order when the other witnesses were cross examined that he had now called this witness, though he was not present in the court and as far as the documents are concerned, he can produce these in the after lunch session. Now file will be taken up in the after lunch session.” The second order challenged by the petitioners dated 03.09.2010 (Annexure P-9), reads as under:- “An application for adjournment has been moved on behalf of the defendants by Mr.Dheerj Bali, Sh. Harpreet Civil Revision No.5809 of 2010 -4- Singh and Sh. Pardeep Kumar Rana, Advocates. Mr. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate filed his power of attorney today itself. The grounds stated in the applications are that they had moved a transfer application before the Learned District Judge, Ropar which has been listed for today itself and with that petition a stay application has been moved and the matter is now subjudice, therefore, present case was liable to be adjourned to some other date. The application is strongly opposed by the opposite counsel. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the defendant has stated that the arguments were heard on the transfer petition today before the Learned District Judge, Ropar and notice has been issued to the opposite party for 9.9.2010 and no stay has been granted by the learned District Judge, in this case. As no stay has been granted by Learned District Judge, Ropar and the Hon'ble High Court has already ordered that the case should be decided by 16.9.2010, therefore, this application can not be accepted and the same is dismissed and learned counsel for the defendant is directed to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff who is present in the Court. PW-3 Budh Singh clerk appeared and when he was being cross-examined, the opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the defendant Mr. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate for cross-examination of witness but, he stated at bar that he has no instruction to do so and will not cross-examine the witness and only Mr. S.D.Bansal can cross-examine the witness and he is indisposed being on bed rest. Therefore, cross-examination upon this witness was ordered to be recorded as Nil (opportunity given). At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff Sh. S.K.Jain, Advocate has given a statement that the other witness PW-6 Deen Dayan, Sr. Assistant who was bound down for today has not come present because has gone to the Hon'ble High Court, Chandigarh and will be available in the after lunch break. As this witness was already bound down for today, therefore, case is adjourned to after lunch sessions for his cross-examination.” The only grievance of the petitioners is that though the plaintiff- Civil Revision No.5809 of 2010 -5- respondent had availed 16 opportunities for leading evidence, it was on the date referred in the impugned order that the counsel for the defendant- petitioners was not available being ill, therefore, the second counsel showed his inability to cross-examine the witness in absence of the senior counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this revision on merit and has prayed that in the interest of justice, the impugned orders be set aside by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the plaintiff by recalling them. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court feels that it would be in the interest of justice, if the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioners are given an opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, examined by the plaintiff, by recalling them. It is made clear that in case the petitioners do not cross-examine the witnesses after they are re-called, it would be open to the learned Court to record cross-examination "Nil" and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. This shall be subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) as costs. Learned counsel for the petitioners also prays that dead line for decision of the case be extended by another three months' time. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the dead line for disposal of the suit is extended by another three months. Revision petition stands disposed of. September 09, 2010 (Vinod K. Sharma) Gagan Judge