Civil Revision No. 3308 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3308 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.6.2010 Tilak Raj .....Petitioner Versus Ram Bhaj .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Shri Satinder Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Namit Gautam, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 11.3.2010 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby evidence of the defendant was closed and the order dated 3.5.2010, whereby an application filed by the defendant for permitting DW1-Ashwani Kumar to appear as a witness for the purposes of cross-examination by the plaintiff, was dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 6.10.2000. In such suit, the plaintiff closed his evidence on 30.5.2007 and the case was fixed for the evidence of defendant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that the defendant tendered affidavit of DW1- Ashwani Kumar in evidence on 14.12.2007, but his cross-examination Civil Revision No. 3308 of 2010 [2] was deferred. Subsequently, Ashwani Kumar has not appeared as a witness though the defendant himself appeared as a witness and was cross-examined. It was on 11.3.2010, the learned trial Court closed evidence of the defendant. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, the defendant was not aware of the order dated 11.3.2010 closing his the evidence. When this fact came to the notice of the defendant, he filed an application for permitting DW1-Ashwani Kumar, to be cross- examined by the plaintiff, but the said application was declined by the learned trial Court on 3.5.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was due to oversight of the counsel for the defendant, the order dated 11.3.2010 did not come to his notice. It is contended that witness was present on some dates, but was not cross-examined by the plaintiff. In any case, it is contended that the plaintiff can be compensated with costs for not examining the witness as and when directed by the Court, as costs are panacea for the delay in concluding the trial. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced the interim orders passed by the Court after 14.12.2007. Though it can be said that the defendant was not diligent in prosecuting the case, but the fact remains that the plaintiff has sought adjournments for the purposes of cross-examination of the defendant’s witness on some dates. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 11.3.2010 and 3.5.2010 passed by the learned trial Court are set aside. The defendant is permitted to produce DW1-Ashwani Kumar, for the purposes of cross-examination by the plaintiff on a date to be fixed by the learned trial Court, subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs. The defendant shall be entitled to produce his other entire evidence on the aforesaid date as well. It is made clear that if the defendant fails to Civil Revision No. 3308 of 2010 [3] lead his entire evidence on the date to be fixed by the trial Court, the evidence of the defendant shall be deemed to be closed. However, it shall be open to the defendant to take assistance of the Court to procure the presence of the witness, but non-appearance of the witness for any reason, whatsoever, will not be a ground to allow the defendant any other opportunity to lead his evidence. Revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 29.6.2010 ds