Civil Revision No. 6008 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6008 of 2011 Date of decision. 29.09.2011 Joga Singh .... Petitioner Versus M/s Som Nath Ravinder Kumar and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Vishal Sharma Haritwal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought by Joga Singh, defendant, under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, vide which the defendant-petitioner was precluded from cross-examining Phool Chand and Rajinder Kumar, the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs as also the order dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure P-4), vide which the evidence of the petitioner has also been closed. M/s Som Nath Ravinder Kumar and others, respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,66,117/- against the petitioner Joga Singh. In the said suit, Phool Chand and Rajinder Kumar were there to be cross-examined Civil Revision No. 6008 of 2011 --2-- on 04.03.2011. The said witnesses were not allowed to be cross-examined as counsel for the defendant had not paid the costs subject to payment of which the adjournment had been granted. Therefore, the trial court proceeded ahead with the case, fixing the same for evidence of the defendant. Learned trial court has observed that the defendant has not paid the costs to the plaintiffs and ordered the testimony of witnesses Phool Chand and Rajinder Kumar to be read against the defendant. Right to cross-examine the material witnesses of the opposite party is a very valuable right. Its significance cannot be underestimated. When it is a case for recovery of a good amount, the very suit would stand decreed if the material witnesses were not permitted to be cross-examined. So while precluding a party from cross-examining the material witnesses of the other party, the court should have acted with circumspection. It is a case where the costs were not paid and non-payment of the costs had resulted in adverse order against the party failing to pay the same. However, the circumstances occasioning the non-payment of costs should have been taken into account. The petitioner has claimed that his relative had died and he could not come to the court and his counsel did not pay the costs. This is a ground on which the penal consequence of non- payment of costs could be avoided. It is a case of double blow to the defendant. Not only he is precluded from cross-examining the two material witnesses of the plaintiffs, who had brought a case for recovery of Rs.2,66,117/- against him, his own evidence has also been closed shortly thereafter. In these circumstances, I Civil Revision No. 6008 of 2011 --3-- do not find the two orders to be justified. Therefore, as requested by learned counsel for the petitioner, one opportunity is given to the defendant to cross-examine the two witnesses of the plaintiffs namely Phool Kumar and Rajinder Kumar and also to complete his evidence. The two witnesses of the plaintiffs are to be produced by the plaintiffs and evidence would be brought by the defendant at his own responsibility on the said date. The opportunity is granted to the defendant subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, as also the payment of the earlier costs, to the opposite party. The revision petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 29.09.2011 dinesh