C.R. No. 657 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 657 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 5, 2009 Kartar Kaur .. Petitioner v. Satnam Kaur and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby the petitioner-plaintiff was denied opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the defendant. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that witnesses of the defendant were examined in chief on 13.10.2008 and the cross-examination was deferred for 22.10.2008. However, on 22.10.2008, as the petitioner was availing remedy against closure of her evidence, did not cross examine the witnesses produced by the defendant. The learned court closed the defence evidence and fixed the case for arguments on 24.10.2008. On the said date of hearing, adjournment was sought by the petitioner as in Civil Revision No. 5668 of 2008, vide order dated 20.10.2008, she has been granted one opportunity to examine the witnesses. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 30.10.2008, the petitioner placed on record copy of order of this court granting opportunity to her for leading evidence and the case was adjourned to 8.11.2008. On the said date, the petitioner-plaintiff produced two witnesses who were examined and since the defendant had already closed the evidence, the case was adjourned to 17.11.2008 for rebuttal evidence/arguments. He further submitted that as the petitioner was granted one opportunity to lead her evidence and after examination of the PWs, she should have been granted an opportunity to cross-examine the defence witnesses as their C.R. No. 657 of 2009 [2] evidence was recorded before the petitioner was granted one opportunity to complete her evidence, as they were not cross-examined at that time. The facts submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. Considering the aforesaid facts, where the statements of defence witnesses were recorded during the period when the petitioner was availing of the remedy against closure of her evidence and the same could not be cross-examined by the petitioner at the relevant time, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the defence witnesses, if not already cross- examined. The same may be done on a date to be fixed by the trial court. However, it shall be subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the defendant. For the reasons mentioned above, the revision petition is allowed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.2.2009 mk