C.R. No.5658 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5658 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9.9.2010 Jagjit Singh through GPA Ajay Kumar ……Petitioner VERSUS Gurnam Singh ……Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.4.2010, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) was closed. 2. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner states that on 24.5.2005, three witnesses of the plaintiff i.e. PWs Ajay Kumar, Jas- pal Singh and Dalbir Singh were present but could not be cross-ex- amined as the Counsel for the defendant (respondent herein) was C.R. No.5658 of 2010 (O&M) -2- out of station. He further states that again on 22.8.2006 all the wit- nesses of the plaintiff/petitioner were present, however, adjournment was sought by the defendant/respondent. Again on 8.12.2006, wit- nesses of the plaintiff/petitioner were present but adjournment was sought by the defendant/respondent. Thereafter, on 20.7.2007, amendment application was moved by the defendant/respondent. That amendment application kept pending till 11.2.2009 and on that day, defendant/respondent had not pressed the amendment applica- tion. Thereafter on 13.10.2009, all the witnesses of the plaintiff/peti- tioner were present but were not cross-examined by the defendant’s Counsel, since defendant’s Counsel was not available. Thereafter, case was adjourned for 15.3.2010 and again the case was adjourned for 16.4.2010 and the impugned order was passed. Learned Coun- sel for the plaintiff/petitioner states that most of the time witnesses of the plaintiff/petitioner were present, however, were not cross-exam- ined on one ground or another. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/peti- tioner further states that plaintiff shall produce all the witnesses for cross-examination on the next date fixed before the learned trial Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that case is fixed for 15.9.2010 before the learned trial Court. 3. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that as a last opportunity plaintiff/petitioner should be permitted to produce all the witnesses before the learned trial Court for cross-examination on 15.9.2010. On that day, defendant/respon- C.R. No.5658 of 2010 (O&M) -3- dent shall cross-examine all the witnesses of the plaintiff/petitioner. However, it is made clear, if all the witnesses could not be cross-ex- amined for no fault of the plaintiff/petitioner then learned trial Court shall be at liberty to fix the date on day to day basis or fix any future day for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, however, no adjournment shall be granted to the plaintiff. Plaintiff/petitioner shall pay Rs.2000/- as costs to the defendant/respondent. 4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner shall produce copy of this order with an advance copy to learned Counsel for the defendant/respondent before the learned trial Court before the next date fixed. 5. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( ALOK SINGH ) 09th September, 2010 JUDGE ashish