CR No.6346 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6346 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.07.2010 Kiran alias Mandeep Kaur and another …petitioners Versus Jaswant Singh and others .....Respondents 1.Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes/No 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes/No 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes/No CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present: Mr. N.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. Respondent No.1 given up. …... L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No.6630 CII of 2010 This application for substituted service of respondents No.1 and 2 is disposed of as infructuous. CR No.6346 of 2009 None is appearing for respondent No.2 in spite of service. Proceeded ex parte. Legal representatives (widow and minor son) of the original plaintiff have filed the instant Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 09.10.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, thereby closing evidence of the plaintiff by court order. CR No.6346 of 2009 (O&M) 2 I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that issues in this case were framed on 08.1.1999 and evidence of the plaintiff was closed by court order on 09.10.2009 i.e. after more than 10 years. However, at the same time, perusal of Zimini orders (Annexure P-1 collectively) passed by the trial Courts from 09.06.2006 to 06.08.2009, reveals that petitioner No.1 had appeared as witness and her examination-in-chief had been recorded. She appeared on many dates of hearing for her cross-examination but whenever she appeared, counsel for the defendants sought adjournment. However, at the same time, on many dates of hearing, petitioner No.1 also did not appear as witness for her cross- examination. Thus, the fault lies on the part of both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only petitioner No.1 be permitted to appear in the witness-box for her remaining cross- examination and no other witness is to be examined. Keeping in view the fact that both the parties were at fault in seeking adjournments, I am inclined to allow this prayer on payment of costs. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The trial Court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to petitioner No.1 to appear in the witness box for her remaining cross- examination, subject to payment of Rs.2500/- as costs precedent. (L.N. MITTAL) JUDGE 29.07.2010 sharmila