cr no.6195 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6195 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 11.12.2009 **** Ram Partap . . . . Petitioner VS. Sita Ram and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3 **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). As per the office report, respondent No.1 has been duly served but no one appears on his behalf. (2). This revision petition is directed by defendant No.1 against the order dated 05.10.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, whereby, his defence has been struck off due to non-payment of cost of Rs.300/- imposed on him vide order dated 08.09.2009. (3). Counsel for the petitioner states that the suit proceedings are at the initial stage and non-payment of cost was due to a bona fide error. He is, however, ready to compensate the respondent-plaintiff with enhanced costs. (4). Keeping in view the above noticed stand taken on behalf of the petitioner and in the interest of justice, the revision cr no.6195 of 2009.doc - 2 - petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 05.10.2009 is hereby set aside. (5). In view of the fact that the impugned order has now been set aside, the learned Civil Court, Narnaul is directed to recall the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs for their cross-examination by the petitioner-defendant No.1, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/- by him to the respondent-plaintiffs. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 11.12.2009 vishal shonkar