C. R. No. 2856 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2856 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 19, 2009 Gurdial Singh and another .... Petitioners Vs. Baldev Raj .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. O. P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by defendants assailing order dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. Plaintiff-respondent appeared in the witness-box on 22.08.2008 and tendered his affidavit as examination-in-chief. His cross-examination was deferred to 22.09.2008. On 22.09.2008, plaintiff-respondent stepped into the witness-box for cross-examination. However, no cross-examination of the witness was conducted on behalf of the petitioners inspite of opportunity and the cross-examination was recorded as `Nil' (opportunity given). In order Annexure P-1 dated 22.09.2008, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) mentioned that one witness has been cross-examined. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned order. It was contended that two orders C. R. No. 2856 of 2009 2 were passed on 22.09.2008 i.e. Annexure P-1 showing that the witness was cross-examined and Annexure P-2 showing that the cross-examination was `Nil' (opportunity given) and these are contradictory orders. The contention is completely misconceived because Annexure P-2 is not order of the Court, but is evidence sheet of witness, who appeared for cross-examination and the petitioners did not want to cross-examine the witness and therefore, his cross-examination was mentioned to be `Nil' (opportunity given). In the zimni order (Annexure P-1), it was rightly mentioned that the witness has been cross-examined because the cross-examination was concluded as the cross-examination was `Nil' (opportunity given). Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that one opportunity for cross-examination of the witness may be granted to the petitioners. Although nothing has been mentioned in the revision petition as to why the witness was not cross-examined on 22.09.2008 inspite of opportunity, yet ends of justice would be met if one opportunity is granted to the petitioners for cross-examination of the aforesaid witness on payment of heavy cost because it appears that counsel for the petitioners in the lower court was acting with callousness and negligence because otherwise, the plaintiff- respondent would not have gone without cross-examination. I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to plaintiff- respondent so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondent of the expenses he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice is issued to him. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is disposed of by directing the trial court to grant one opportunity to the petitioners for cross- examination of plaintiff-respondent, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent. May 19, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE