IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2683 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.10.2009 Smt.Saroj & another .....Petitioners versus Mam Raj & others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner No.1 is a widow whereas petitioner No.2 is her minor daughter. They are aggrieved at the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, whereby their application to recall PW-1 Mam Raj, for his cross-examination, has been dismissed. It is apparent from the impugned order that PW-1 Mam Raj was examined by the respondent-plaintiff on 7.5.2004 and an opportunity to cross-examine him was given to the counsel for the petitioners. The said opportunity was, however, not availed. It is true that ordinarily once an opportunity is granted to cross-examine the witness and the party fails to avail the same, has no right to seek recalling of the said witness for the purpose of his cross- C.R. No.2683 of 2009 (O&M) 2 examination. The facts and circumstances of the case in hand are exceptional as petitioner No.1 who is young widow is struggling hard to bring up her minor daughter-petitioner No.2 and could not instruct her counsel to avail the given opportunity. No serious prejudice shall be caused to the plaintiff- respondent if the petitioners are given another opportunity to cross- examine the witness by suitably compensating the plaintiff with costs. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the interest of justice demands that one opportunity be granted to the petitioners to cross-examine PW-1 Mam Raj. For the reasons aforestated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 4.3.2009 is set-aside and the trial Court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioners to cross- examine PW-1 Mam Raj, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/- to the plaintiff-respondent. The respondent-plaintiff is directed to ensure the presence of PW-1 Mam Raj on the next date of hearing so as to avoid further delay. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not seek any adjournment and their counsel is duty bound to cross-examine the said witness on the next date subject to payment of costs aforesaid. Dasti. 28-10-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE