IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2694 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.4.2011 Krishan Chand … Petitioner versus Baldev Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the defendant in the suit for recovery titled as Baldev Singh v. Krishan Chand. He is aggrieved with order dated 21.2.2011 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dhuri, by dint of which his application for recalling Baldev Singh,plaintiff, for further cross-examination has been dismissed. The facts, in brief, are that Plaintiff Baldev Singh has closed his evidence. Baldev Singh was already cross-examined by the defendant; however, in the application for recalling him for further cross- examination, a plea has been taken that Baldev Singh is an educated man and generally signs in English but in the present suit, he has signed the entire documents in Punjabi intentionally in order to save himself from the confrontation of writing dated 13.11.2007 by virtue of which the entire claim regarding loan amount had been settled and due to inadvertence, certain questions in that regard were not put to him in cross-examination. Heard. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner seeks only one opportunity for which he is ready to pay necessary costs; otherwise he shall suffer an irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any manner. Keeping in view the fact that no prejudice is going to be caused to C.R. No. 2694 of 2011 -2- the plaintiff who can well be compensated with costs, this Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to conduct further cross- examination upon the plaintiff. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. The trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner-defendant for further cross-examination of plaintiff Baldev Singh. The order passed is, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/-, to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite side. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feels dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. April 26, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE