C.R. No.7395 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7395 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 19.11.2010. Chain Singh .....Petitioner Versus Satwant Kaur and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Chain Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 06.10.2010 Annexure P-3 and order dated 15.10.2010 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal thereby declining prayer for adjournment for cross-examination of Inderjit Kaur PW (whose examination-in-chief already stood recorded) and thereby closing the evidence of plaintiff-petitioner by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that cross- examination of Inderjit Kaur PW was deferred on 12.06.2010, on the request of counsel for the defendants, but on 06.10.2010, the said witness was abroad and, therefore, could not appear in the trial Court for cross- examination. It is also contended that Inderjit Kaur PW has since returned from abroad, but has suffered paralytical attack and is admitted in hospital and is not in a position to depose. It is accordingly contended that only one more opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for examination C.R. No.7395 of 2010 (O & M) -2- of Gurbachan Kaur (sister of Inderjit Kaur) in place of Inderjit Kaur. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Issues in the suit were framed on 17.01.2010. Examination-in-chief of PW Inderjit Kaur was recorded on 12.06.2010 along with examination-in-chief of Chain Singh-plaintiff. Their cross-examination was deferred on request of counsel for the defendants. On 06.10.2010, application for examination of Chain Singh-plaintiff on commission was accepted by the trial Court. However, request for adjourning the case for cross-examination of PW- Inderjit Kaur on the ground that she was abroad to meet her daughter, was declined by the trial Court. In all, four effective opportunities were granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for his evidence. However, since Inderjit Kaur PW is presently not in a position to depose on account of paralytical attack, permission is being sought to examine her sister Gurbachan Kaur as witness in her place. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the aforesaid prayer is allowed on payment of costs. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents from the expenses which they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice of revision petition is issued to them. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to examine Gurbachan Kaur as witness at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs precedent. 19.11.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE