IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.608/2009 Date of Decision:4.2.2009 Amar Lal ..........Petitioner. Versus Gurpal Kaur ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Arvind Mittal,Advocate for the petitioner-defendant. JASWANT SINGH,J Petitioner-defendant has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ropar, whereby cross examination of respondent-plaintiff- Gurpal Kaur, was ordered to be treated as nil. The impugned order reads as under:- “Present: Sh.A. L.Verma,Adv.counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant in person. Today Gurpal Kaur remained present for her cross-examination since the morning, but Ld. Counsel for the defendant did not appear throughout the day. An opportunity was given to defendant to cross examine this witness, but he did not cross examine him (sic.), and as such the cross examination of PW Gurpal Kaur is ordered to be treated as nil. No other PW is present. A date is CR NO.608/2009 2 requested. Now for entire remaining evidence of the plaintiff, case is adjourned to 10.10.2008.” It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that learned trial Court committed grave error of law by passing impugned order whereby right of the petitioner-defendant to cross examine the respondent-plaintiff, in a suit for possession, has been forfeited. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that this revision petition deserves acceptance and the impugned order dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure P/3) be set aside. It is apparent from a bare perusal of the impugned order that counsel for the petitioner-defendant did not appear in the Court on 3.9.2008 whereas petitioner was very much present in Court. Providing of an opportunity by the trial Court to the petitioner-defendant to cross examine the respondent-plaintiff, as recorded in its impugned order, is meaningless. It is difficult, nay impossible, for a lay man, as is the case of petitioner herein, to cross examine a witness at the spur of moment. Moreover, nowhere it is recorded in the impugned order that on earlier occasions also counsel for the petitioner-defendant had failed to cross examine the respondent-plaintiff. In these circumstances, this revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure P/3) is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to fix a date for cross-examination of the respondent-plaintiff on which date the petitioner-defendant shall proceed with the cross examination of plaintiff Gurpal Kaur. However, this shall be subject to payment of costs, which are quantified at Rs.5000/-. CR NO.608/2009 3 It is further clarified that in case petitioner-defendant, on the date fixed by the trial Court, fails to cross examine the respondent-plaintiff, his right to cross examine would stand forfeited and the learned trial Court would be free to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. This revision petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to respondent-plaintiff, so as to avoid unnecessary delay and expenses and even otherwise, when she is being compensated by way of costs. Disposed of. Dasti on payment. 4.2.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge