IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2713 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.4.2011 Vaishno Gupta … Petitioner versus M/s Allwyn Enterprises(India), Ludhiana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for recovery. He is aggrieved with order dated 6.4.2011 passed by the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ludhiana, by dint of which cross-examination of DW-1 has been treated as nil. The facts, in brief, are that DW-1 tendered his affidavit in evidence on 5.3.2011 and for his cross-examination, case was adjourned to 23.3.2011. However, on that date, the said DW was not present and the case was adjourned for 6.4.2011 on which date, counsel for the plaintiff was busy in some other Court resulting in passing of the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition. Heard. The application moved for adjournment indicates that counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner was busy in the court of District Judge, Ludhiana, in cases, namely, State v. Adarsh Mishra, Gurdev Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh and Lalman Sharma v. Sita Devi. Even the impugned order passed after lunch indicates that an adjournment was sought on the ground that the counsel was busy in some other case before the District Judge. The presence of the counsel to conduct cross-examination was thus beyond the C.R. No. 2713 of 2011 -2- control of the plaintiff and if one opportunity is not granted to the plaintiff- petitioner for cross-examination, he would suffer an irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any manner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff to conduct cross-examination upon DW-1. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside to the extent of treating cross-examination of the afore-said witness of the defendants as Nil. The trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff for conducting cross-examination of DW-1. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision 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 petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be given dasti. April 26, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE