C.M.No.11726-CII of 2009 and #1# C.R.No.2794 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.11726-CII of 2009 and C.R.No.2794 of 2009 Date of Order: 15.5.2009 Gurmit Kaur .....Petitioners Versus Baldev Kaur and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J C.M.No.11726-CII of 2009 Application is allowed. Annexures P.1 and P.3 are taken on record and exemption from filing certified copies of the same is granted. C.R.No.2794 of 2009 By filing the present revision petition, petitioner-defendant No.1 has prayed for setting aside order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure P.2) whereby the cross-examination of PW4 and PW5 was ordered to be treated as “Nil” in the absence of their counsel and the remaining evidence was also closed by order; and further prayed for quashing of order dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure P.4) whereby her application for recalling of PW4 and PW5 for their cross-examination was dismissed. Facts in brief are that one Joginder Singh died issueless and C.M.No.11726-CII of 2009 and #2# C.R.No.2794 of 2009 without wife. He was survived by three brothers namely Niranjan Singh, Narinder Singh and Kulwant Singh and two sisters namely Avtar Kaur and Santosh Kaur. Niranjan Singh and Narinder Singh also died after the death of Joginder Singh. The dispute is regarding the share of Joginder Singh between the descendants of his brothers and sisters. Respondent No.1-Baldev Kaur daughter of deceased Niranjan Singh filed a suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of the land belonging to the share of Joginder Singh on the basis of a registered will dated 20.11.1991 executed by the deceased Joginder Singh during his life time. On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed and when the case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was listed for evidence on 18.12.2007, petitioner-defendant No.1 moved an application Annexure P.1 seeking adjournment of the case on account of non-availability of her counsel. The request was not entertained and the impugned order was passed. Thereafter, an application Annexure P.3 was made for recalling of order dated 18.12.2007, which was also dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 submits that the counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 was out of station for some domestic work on 18.12.2007 and an application was made for adjournment of the case. The learned trial Court declined the request and asked petitioner-defendant No.1 to cross examine the witnesses present in Court i.e PW4 and PW5. It is urged by the learned counsel that the petitioner- defendant No.1 being a semi-literate lady, unfamiliar with the intricacies of the procedure/law could not be reasonably expected to cross examine the C.M.No.11726-CII of 2009 and #3# C.R.No.2794 of 2009 present witnesses and, therefore, could not be made to suffer for non- presence of her counsel due to his domestic reasons, who had also failed to make alternate arrangements. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book with his assistance, this Court, keeping in view the totality of circumstances, is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner-defendant No.3 to cross examine PW4 and PW5. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure P.2) and 17.3.2009 (Annexure P.4) are set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for cross examination of PW4 and PW5 on a date to be fixed by it, for which PW4 and PW5 shall be directed to be present subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs to be paid to respondent No.1-plaintiff by way of demand draft. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondents as it would result in unnecessarily delay in the matter and expenses for the other party. In any case, respondent No.1-Baldev Kaur/plaintiff is being compensated by way of costs. In case, respondents are aggrieved by this order, they will be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order. Allowed in the above terms. May 15, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE