Civil Revision No. 7453 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7453 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 5th, 2011 Bhupinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus Amarjit Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Bhupinder Singh, petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 3.10.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana by way of this revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned trial court has ordered cross-examination of Jaswinder Singh (PW-1) to be treated as nil vide the impugned order. Amarjit Singh, respondent had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.44,23,400/- against the petitioner, Bhupinder Singh. Jaswinder Singh, a witness brought by Amarjit Singh, plaintiff was to be cross- examined by the defendant. For the fact that he was present for facing cross-examination since morning and learned proxy counsel for the defendant had prayed for adjournment claiming that the counsel was Civil Revision No. 7453 of 2011 2 .. busy in another court as also for the fact that similar was the situation on the earlier date, the court came to the conclusion that the defendant did not want to cross-examine the witness and wanted just to delay the case. Therefore, concluding that no ground has been made out to adjourn the case for further cross-examination of PW-1, his cross- examination was treated as nil. I have heard Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Earlier to the passing of the impugned order, the case was fixed for 2.9.2011. On that date also, Jaswinder Singh (PW-1) was present but could not be cross-examined as counsel for the defendant was stated to be busy in another court and was unable to cross-examine the witness. In view of the said request, the witness was bound down for 3.10.2011 and when the situation did not improve on 3.10.2011, learned trial court treated the cross-examination of PW-1 as nil. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to justify the conduct of learned counsel for the defendant in not presenting himself on two occasions for cross-examination of the witness. A witness cannot be kept in attendance indefinitely, waiting for the counsel on the other side to be free from other court for his cross-examination. The conduct of learned counsel for the defendant is not sought to be justified by way of this revision petition and moreover, the same could not be justified in any manner. The other party by this conduct of learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has been burdened with the responsibility to keep the witness in attendance on two dates. So, the trial court cannot be held Civil Revision No. 7453 of 2011 3 .. unjustified in treating the cross-examination of PW-1 as nil. However, the interest of justice looks the other way. A case of the party cannot be allowed to be prejudiced on account of such conduct of the counsel. Adjournment could be given for cross-examination of PW-1 and for that the defendant could be burdened with adequate costs to compensate PW-1 for his time lost in attending the court. In these circumstances, the interest of justice certainly requires an opportunity to be given to the petitioner to cross-examine PW-1, though subject to payment of costs. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to give one opportunity to the defendant- petitioner to cross-examine Jaswinder Singh (PW-1). (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 5th, 2011 som