IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3749 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 04th November, 2009. Charandeep Kaur Petitioner through Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate Versus Sarabjit Singh & Ors. Respondents through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the petitioner against the order dated 9.6.2009 passed by the Civil Judge [Junior Division], Amritsar whereby an application moved by the petitioner – defendant No. 2 to recall the plaintiff's witnesses, has been dismissed. Respondent No. 1 – Sarabjit Singh has filed a suit for declaration, challenging the Succession certificate granted in favour of the petitioner and her mother. The facts on record reveal that the petitioner's defence was struck off due to non-filing of the written statement vide order dated 13.9.2005, against which, she approached this Court by way of Civil Revision No. 3586 of 2006 which was allowed vide order dated 25.4.2008 and she was permitted to file her written statement, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/-. The record further reveals that pursuant to the afore- stated order passed by this Court, the petitioner joined the proceedings on 17.07.2008. However, much before that, the first respondent – plaintiff had already closed his evidence on 4.2.2008. Obviously, the petitioner had no occasion to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses as her defence had been struck off and the matter was pending in this Court. The order striking off the petitioner's defence having been set aside by this Court, there can indeed be no doubt that the petitioner is entitled to participate in the suit proceedings effectively which shall include her right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses as well. The denial of that right would tantamount to frustrating the fruits of the order dated 25.4.2008. It may be noticed here that respondent No. 1 was ordered to be served through Dasti notice at his village address. Thereafter, vide order dated 8.9.2009 it was observed that he is prima facie evading service. The petitioner has thereafter attempted to serve respondent No. 1 through his local counsel also. While the counsel has refused to accept the notice on the plea that the same should be served upon respondent No.1, the latter has tried to evade the service and his nephew has declined to acknowledge the receipt of the notice. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 9.6.2009 is set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to cross-examine all those plaintiff's witnesses who have already entered the witness box behind her back. It is directed that the suit shall not proceed further unless the plaintiff produces his witnesses for their cross-examination and in the event of their non-appearance, the affidavits filed by them in the examination-in-chief shall be liable to be over-looked. Dasti. November 4, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE