Civil Revision No. 1482 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1482 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.3.2009 Ranjit ..... Petitioner vs Ram Kali and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 26.2.2009 passed by the learned Court below, whereby the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff was closed by observing that the evidence of the witnesses who were already examined shall not be read against defendant no. 1/respondent no. 1. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the suit as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction with a consequential relief of permanent injunction on 19.12.2002. He submitted that earlier only respondents no. 2 and 3 had filed written statement but respondent no. 1 had not filed the written statement. Respondent no. 1 filed written statement on 16.4.2008. Thereafter, on an application to amend the written statement, she was allowed to amend the same. Learned counsel further submitted that vide order dated 12.2.2009 respondent no.1/ defendant no.1 was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff which have already been cross- examined by respondents no. 2 and 3, as fresh written statement was filed by her. It was also directed that in case the petitioner/plaintiff fails to produce any of the witnesses, it would be presumed that he does not wish to get the witnesses cross-examined by defendant no. 1 and the evidence of that witness against respondent no.1 would not be read in evidence and the case was adjourned to 26.2.2009. Civil Revision No. 1482 of 2009 (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further submitted that he had examined six witnesses which were already cross-examined by respondents no. 2 and 3 but respondent no.1 did not examine them as she had sought permission to amend the written statement for which was later on granted to her. He has tried his best to bring all the witnesses on the date fixed by the court but as they belong to different places it was not possible for him to produce them on that date. He submitted that in case, in a short span of time, two opportunities are granted to him, he will produce the witnesses already cross-examined by respondents no. 2 and 3 for their cross- examination by respondent no. 1/ defendant no.1. From the facts of the case as are evident from the record, it is clear that the proceedings to some extent started de-novo after the grant of permission on 12.2.2009 to respondent no. 1 to amend the written statement and cross-examine the witnesses produced by the petitioner. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 26.2.2009 for cross-examination by respondent no. 1. As the witnesses could not be produced, it was directed that the statements of the witnesses already recorded shall not be read in evidence against respondent no.1/ defendant no.1. Once at the belated stage, respondent no. 1 was permitted to amend the written statement, the learned court below after considering the facts of the present case should not have acted in such a haste. Fair opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to produce the witnesses for further cross-examination. From the facts stated above, I find that the cause shown by the petitioner for permitting him two opportunities to produce witnesses is made out. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be granted two opportunities within a span of one month from next date fixed by the learned court below to enable him to produce the six witnesses already examined by him for their cross-examination by respondent no. 1. However, it is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner. For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.2.2009 is set aside. 18.3.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge