Civil Rev. 5374 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 5374 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.8.2009 Uday Shankar Gupta Petitioner vs Manu Rishi Gupta and Ors Respondent Present Ms. Archna Saini, Advocate for Mr. Pandit Vinod Sharma, Advocate Mr. Shailender Kaushal, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. A probate application filed by Manu Rishi Gupta, respondent No.1 is pending in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. He claims that his grand father Ram Chander Gupta had executed a Will dated 13.12.2000 in his favour pertaining to the property owned by him. The petitioner Uday Shanker Gupta is father of respondent No.2 and has been arrayed as respondent No.1 before the lower court. Tanu Priya Gupta, respondent No.2 is the sister of resp. No.1 Manu Rishi Gupta and has been impleaded as respondent No.2 before the lower court. Besides Petitioner Uday Shanker Gupta and Tanu Priya Gupta, general public has been impleaded as respondent No.3 before the lower court. Vide impugned order dated 5.8.2008 the request of the petitioner to defer the cross- examination of Tanu Priya Gupta and Manu Rishi Gupta was declined and the cross- examination was treated as nil. It is apparent from the record of the lower court that the petitioner being the father of the witnesses was aware that Tanu Priya Gupta had to go back to USA on 15.8.2008 and his son Manu Rishi Gupta had to return to UK on 12.8.2008 Civil Rev. 5374 of 2008 2 and it was not possible for both the witnesses to stay back. It is also apparent that the petitioner had been adopting delaying tactics and was avoiding to cross-examine the witnesses. Taking into consideration the said attitude of the petitioner, his request for deferring the cross- examination has been declined. There is no impropriety in the order but taking into consideration the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner as the civil rights of the parties, accruing from the Will are to be determined, which can have far reaching consequences. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of this case. A direction was given to the counsel for the respondents to find out as to when the witnesses Tanu Priya Gupta and Manu Rishi Gupta would be available. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has informed that Tanu Priya Gupta is presently in India and would be available till the first week of September. So far as Manu Rishi Gupta is concerned, it has been informed that he would be available around 7.11.2009. The cross-examination of Manu Rishi Gupta and Tanu Priya Gupta would be necessary to enable the Court to arrive at a just conclusion regarding the execution of the Will dated 13.12.2000, alleged to have been executed by Ram Chander Gupta. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 5.8.2008 is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the petitioner or his counsel would be entitled to cross-examine Tanu Priya Gupta on 29.8.2009 and he will also be entitled to cross-examine Manu Rishi Gupta on 7.11.2009 subject to a total payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs. It is observed that if, for any unavoidable circumstances, the trial court is not able to examine the witnesses Tanu Priya Gupta and Manu Rishi Gupta on 29.8.2009 and 7.11.2009 respectively, the matter can be adjourned for a period not beyond one week by fixing a date as per the Civil Rev. 5374 of 2008 3 convenience of the parties/ their counsel. In case the cross-examination is not conducted on the above said dates or the costs are not paid on 29.8.2009, the present revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. A copy of the order will be sent to the concerned Court by the learned Registrar (Judicial). Learned counsel for the parties will be entitled to get a copy of the order under the signatures of the Special Secretary. August 25 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE