Civil Revision No. 8214 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 8214 of 2010 Date of decision : December 17, 2010 Chandhala Devi ....Petitioner versus Balwinder Kaur and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Chanchala Devi one of the legal representative of Uttam Chand defendant since deceased has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 7.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur thereby treating cross-examination of respondent no. 1 – plaintiff Balwinder Kaur PW1 as nil on behalf of the legal representatives of the defendant. It has been observed in the impugned order by the trial court that plaintiff was present for cross-examination since morning but none appeared on behalf of defendant to cross-examine the witness or to make request to keep the matter pending. Accordingly, at 12.30 PM cross- examination of PW1 (plaintiff) was treated as nil and case was adjourned to Civil Revision No. 8214 of 2010 -2- 10.1.2011 for remaining evidence of plaintiff for which last opportunity has been given. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that counsel for the petitioner in the trial court was busy in some other court and therefore, he could not appear in the trial court for cross-examination of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more opportunity be given to the petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 to 4 (LRs of defendant) for cross-examination of the plaintiff on payment of cost. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Absence of cross-examination of the plaintiff would cause grave prejudice to the cause of the petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 to 4. In my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to them to cross-examine the plaintiff on payment of cost. Case is already fixed for remaining evidence of the plaintiff in the trial court. Consequently, the plaintiff can be compensated by way of cost. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the plaintiff so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save the plaintiff-respondent of the expenses she may have to incur to engage counsel for the revision petition if notice of the revision petition is issued to her. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 to 4 (LRs of defendant) for cross- Civil Revision No. 8214 of 2010 -3- examination of respondent no. 1- plaintiff PW1 subject to payment of Rs 2500/- as costs precedent. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 17, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'