Civil Revision No.4722 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4722 of 2008 Date of decision: September 15, 2008 Amrik Singh …..PETITIONER Versus Karnail Singh and Another …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Ashok Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1-caveator. T.P.S.MANN, J. Application filed by Karnail Singh plaintiff-respondent No.1 for examining Navdeep Gupta, Document Expert was allowed by learned trial Court. Aggrieved of the same, Amrik Singh-defendant has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As is apparent from the impugned order, aforementioned Document Expert was brought into witness box by the plaintiff as PW-3 on 30.7.2007, who tendered his affidavit Exhibit PC into evidence as his examination-in-chief. He was to be cross-examined, thereafter, by learned counsel for the defendants, who however expressed his inability to do so, for the reason that he was not feeling well. The cross- examination was, accordingly, deferred for the next date. The plaintiff all the time remained under an impression that Navdeep Gupta had already been cross-examined and for that reason, he closed his evidence on 14.1.2008. Subsequently, when he inspected the file and learnt that Navdeep Gupta PW-3 had not been cross-examined, he filed the application in question for summoning him once again for the purpose of his cross-examination by the defendants. Prima facie, it was Civil Revision No.4722 of 2008 -2- inadvertence/negligence on the part of counsel for the plaintiff in not requesting the Court to ask the defendants for cross-examining Navdeep Gupta before the evidence of the plaintiff was closed, but on that account, the plaintiff could not be made to suffer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that interim order/zimni order passed by learned trial Court on 30.7.2007 did not mention that cross-examination of Navdeep Gupta PW-3 had been deferred, as learned counsel for the defendants was not feeling well. It was only mentioned therein that the cross-examination stood deferred. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the said interim order as reproduced in para-4 of the revision. Learned trial Court clearly mentioned in its interim order dated 30.7.2007 that Navdeep Gupta PW-3 stood examined-in-chief and his cross-examination deferred for the reason as given therein. Apparently, the Court was referring to the reason as recorded in the statement of Navdeep Gupta PW-3 himself. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-caveator has produced statement of Navdeep Gupta PW-3 as recorded on 30.7.2007. It has clearly been mentioned therein that cross-examination stood deferred, as learned counsel for the defendants was not felling well. Therefore, it cannot be held that the cross-examination was not deferred, at the instance of the defendants. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. September 15, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE