IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2748 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 10th August, 2009. M/s Mamta Finance Co. Petitioner through Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate Versus Gurwinder Singh Respondent through Mr. Dhininder Chopra, Advocate. 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 order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2748 and 2749 of 2008 as common questions of law and fact are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CR No. 2748 of 2008. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 01.05.2008 passed by the Civil Judge [Senior Division], Patiala whereby the petitioner – defendant's application to permit him to file additional affidavit of Tarsem Chand Goel, the only left-out witness to be cross-examined by the respondent – plaintiff, has been dismissed primarily on the ground that this Court vide order dated 14.1.2008 passed in Civil Revision No. 4626 of 2007 had granted only one and last opportunity to the petitioner – defendant to produce said Tarsem Chand Goel for his cross-examination. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It transpires that Tarsem Chand Goel [DW1] has already filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The evidence of the petitioner was, however, closed as the said witness failed to appear for cross-examination despite several opportunities. That order of the trial Court was set aside by this Court in the aforementioned revision petition thereby granting one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce Tarsem Chand Goel for his cross-examination, subject to payment of costs. The petitioner now wants to supplement the examination- in-chief of the said Tarsem Chand Goel by way of filing his additional affidavit. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner does not want to produce any new witness by way of additional evidence and has limited its prayer to supplement the examination-in-chief of Tarsem Chand Goel, I am of the considered view that it will be in the interest of justice and fair play to give last opportunity to the petitioner – defendant, though subject to the following directions:- [i] The supplementary affidavit of Tarsem Chand Goel along with documents, if any, shall be filed by the petitioner by 31.08.2009 with an advance copy to counsel for the respondent – plaintiff; [ii] Tarsem Chand Goel shall remain present in Court for his cross-examination on the date fixed, i.e., 3.10.2009 and no adjournment on the asking of the petitioner or Tarsem Chand Goel shall be granted. However, if the respondent – plaintiff is unable to conclude the cross-examination of Tarsem Chand Goel on 3.10.2009, he shall be entitled to one more opportunity to do so; [iii] the petitioner's witness - Tarsem Chand Goel [DW1] shall be permitted to supplement his examination-in-chief subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs which shall be paid on 3.10.2009; [iv] in case Tarsem Chand Goel fails to appear on the date fixed, i.e., 3.10.2009 or costs are not paid, in that event, the petitioner's evidence shall be deemed to have been closed. Disposed of. Dasti. August 10, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE