IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2531 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.4.2011 Birmati and others … Petitioners versus Rajesh Kumar and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. S.S.Godara, Advocate, for the petitioners ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit for declaration. They are aggrieved with the order dated 15.4.2011 by virtue of which their request to summon the witnesses through the process of the Court has been declined with liberty to produce the witnesses sought to be examined on the date fixed on their own responsibility. The facts are that at the time of framing of issues, the plaintiffs-petitioners were directed to file list of witnesses and process- fee/diet money etc. within seven days if they wanted to summon any witness through the process of the Court. They availed three opportunities but neither the list of witnesses was filed nor process-fee/diet money was deposited. It was only four days prior to the date fixed i.e. 19.4.2011, an application has been filed to summon five witnesses through the process of the Court without giving any plausible reason for not filing the said list at the earliest when opportunity was given. Heard. The present petitioners are stated to be illierate “Pardanashin” ladies along with minor children. Their stand is that in fact their counsel had noted a wrong date i.e. 3.5.2011 instead of 19.4.2011. A party cannot be made to suffer due to negligence on the part of his/her counsel. Furthermore, the witnesses sought to be summoned are official C.R. No. 2531 of 2011 -2- witnesses and cannot be produced at the instance of plaintiffs-petitioners. In view of this, the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set aside with a direction to the trial Court to issue process in respect of the witnesses sought to be summoned by the petitioners-plaintiffs for the date fixed in the matter. However, this shall be subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the opposite party. 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 besides causing unnecessary burden to the public exchequer. 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. April 19, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE