IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1812 of 2011 Date of decision: 5.5.2011 Sukhwinder Kaur and others … Petitioners versus Bhupinder Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Mehar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondent ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: A suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2.8.1999, titled Bhupinder Singh v. Nasib Kaur was filed in the year 2006. Nasib Kaur expired and thus, was being represented by her son Ajaib Singh. Plaintiff examined his witnesses, PW-2 Jarnail Singh, PW-3 Joginder Singh, PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh and PW-5 Bachan Singh but they were not cross-examined despite the grant of number of opportunities and as such, their cross-examination was treated as Nil vide order dated 25.3.2009. Ajaib Singh filed an application for recalling of the said witnesses for cross-examination on the ground that on 25.3.2009, on account of an accident, he was admitted in hospital and as such, could not instruct his counsel for cross-examination. During the pendency of his application, Ajaib Singh expired on 8.6.2009. The present petitioners are the legal representatives of Ajaib Singh. The application moved by Ajaib Singh has been dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2010. Hence, this revision. Annexure P-6 is the discharge slip of the Command Hospital (Western Command) Chandimandir indicating that Ajaib Singh was admitted on 14.3.2009 on account of intratronchial fracture and other C.R. No. 1812 of 2011 -2- complications. He was discharged on 26.3.2009. Thus, on 25.3.2009 when the cross-examination of the afore-stated witnesses was treated as Nil, Ajaib Singh was admitted in the hospital and obviously, he was not able to instruct his counsel for cross-examination of the said witnesses. The present case looks to be of great hardship. Ajaib Singh has since expired. The present petitioners (LRs of Ajaib Singh)-defendants will certainly suffer an irreparable loss if such permission is not granted. Counsel for the petitioners also prays that only one opportunity be granted, may be subject to payment of costs. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant to enhance it and not to scuttle the same. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge whereby cross- examination of the afore-stated witnesses has been treated as Nil is set aside. The trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner for conducting cross-examination of the afore-stated four witnesses, namely, PW-2 Jarnail Singh, PW-3 Joginder Singh, PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh and PW-5 Bachan Singh. The order passed is, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the opposite side. May 05, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE