IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3871 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.6.2011 Ravinder Kumar and another … Petitioners versus Harish Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioners ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioners are the defendants in the suit for recovery titled Smt. Sudesh Rani v. Ravinder Kumar and another. They are aggrieved with order dated 25.1.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Amritsar, by dint of which the adjournment sought for the cross-examination of Satish Kumar was declined and his cross-examination was treated as nil. Heard. Satish Kumar is stated to be the legal representative of Sudesh Kumari (since deceased). He was already partly cross-examined on 3.12.2010 and the remaining cross-examination was deferred. However, the case file shows indicates that on 25.1.2011, counsel for the defendants was busy in cross-examination of a witness in another case which started at 10.45 AM and continued till 12.40 PM and in the post-lunch, counsel had to leave for Chandigarh in connection with some other matter and for that reason, adjournment was sought which was declined and cross-examination was treated as Nil. It is settled proposition of law that a party should not suffer due to lapse on the part of his counsel. This Court feels that if one opportunity is not granted to the defendant-petitioners, they will suffer an irreparable loss. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant to enhance it and not to scuttle the same. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the trial Court C.R. No. 3871 of 2011 -2- is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the defendant-petitioners for the purpose of cross-examination of said Satish Kumar. This order, however, is subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the opposite side before the trial Court. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. June 03, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE