Civil Revision No. 6916 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6916 of 2011 Date of decision. 16.11.2011 Smt. Payal Arora .... Petitioner Versus Kamal Kumar ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Smt. Payal Arora, plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.08.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was closed by order of the court. In the suit brought by Smt. Payal Arora for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 18.10.2003, one witness was present before learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana on 08.08.2011. He was cross-examined. No other witness was present. Request was made by learned counsel for the petitioner for adjournment. Since the file revealed that issues in this case were framed on 12.01.2007 and thereafter Civil Revision No. 6916 of 2011 --2-- plaintiff availed approximately 17 opportunities to conclude her evidence, the request of learned counsel for the plaintiff was considered and declined. I have heard Shri Suveer Sheokand, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Iqbal Singh, PW-3, who has been partly examined was left to be cross- examined. According to him, he is a material witness and if he was not cross-examined, his evidence would not be read in support of the case of the plaintiff. He has submitted that an opportunity may be granted for cross-examination of said Iqbal Singh, PW-3 only. He has also disputed the number of opportunities availed by the plaintiff to lead her evidence. Though, learned trial court has not given the exact number of opportunities availed by the plaintiff and has mentioned that the opportunities availed by the plaintiff are approximately 17, the opportunities actually availed by the plaintiff may be one or two less than that. However, that also makes no difference because 15 opportunities would also be more than enough. Therefore, learned trial court does not seem to be unjustified in taking the decision of closing the evidence of the plaintiff. However, Iqbal Singh,PW-3 had already been put in the witness box and his examination-in-chief stands recorded. For the negligence of the plaintiff to put him in the witness box for cross- examination , she could be burdened with costs. So interest of justice Civil Revision No. 6916 of 2011 --3-- required grant of one opportunity to the plaintiff to produce Iqbal Singh, PW-3 for his cross-examination, though subject to payment of costs.. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 08.08.2011 is set aside, directing learned trial court to give one opportunity to the plaintiff to produce Iqbal Singh, PW-3 for his cross- examination, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 16.11.2011 dinesh