IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3702 of 2011 Date of decision: 1.6.2011 Sewa Singh … Petitioner versus Om Parkash ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for recovery, titled Sewa Singh v. Om Parkash. He is aggrieved with the order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, by virtue of which plaintiff's two witnesses,namely, Nafe Singh and Balwinder Singh were not permitted for cross-examination. The facts are that the affidavit of the plaintiff and so as the affidavits of Nafe Singh and Balwinder Singh by way of examination- in-chief were tendered; howeever, on 28.3.2011, plaintiff did not appear on account of some heart trouble. The Court granted one more opportunity for his cross-examination for 18.4.2011 but the same was declined to Nafe Singh and Balwinder Singh. Hence, this revision. Heard. There is no dispute that on 28.3.2011, plaintiff himself had not appeared in Court on account of heart trouble. Since his other two witnesses, namely, Nafe Singh and Balwinder Singh, were also to be brought by him, they, therefore, did not come present in Court for their cross-examination. In my view, the Court if has allowed one opportunity for plaintiff's cross-examination, then there was no difficulty as to similar order qua Nafe Singh and Balwinder Singh. The plaintiff will certainly suffer an irreparable loss because the examination-in-chief by way of C.R. No. 3702 of 2011 -2- affidavit will not be taken into consideration if no cross-examination is conducted by the other side. In view of this, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity for the cross-examination of the afore-stated two witnesses; however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the petitioner-plaintiff to the opposite side before the trial Court. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feels dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. June 01, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE