23 a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision2 March 0 2011 1 Civil Revision Noe2145 of 2011 Ashwani Kumar Sachdeva and another eeePetitioners Versus 00 Jarnail Singh and others Respondents I C5 I CORAMl HONBLE MR1USTICE MOHINDER PAL Z 1 lNhether Reportersof Iocal papers may be allowed to see the judgment7 tr 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 I L2 z Presentl MrVikas Mohan Gupta Advocate for the petitionerse QO 7 MOHINDER PAL J Z The defendantsoetitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the tria l Court whereby further crossexamination of witness of the pla namely PW Jaswinder Kaur has been marked as nil in a suit filed by the plaintiffespondents against the for recovery of RS 11596831 along with interest After hearing the Iearned counsel for the defendants petitioners and goingthrough the impugnedorder I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its Rashmi 2013.01.18 13: 02 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 24 2 Il revisional jurisdiction Sufficient opportunities had been granted by the trial Court to the defendantsoetitionersto crossexamine PW Jaswinder Kau who had to come to the trial Court time and again from Mumba but in spite of that the defendantsoetitioners tried to postpone the crossexamination of the said witness by adopting dillye dallyingtactics PW Jaswinder Kaur for the first time appearedbefore the trial Court on 11122009 when she tendered her affidavit Ill evidence This witness was partly crosseexamined on 1392010 and m her further crosseexamination was deferred She againappearedon 14122010 but no crossexamination was conducted by the 00 defendants The matter was adjourned to 112011 subject to I payment of costs of Rse20001 by the defendantsmpetitioners As C5 11 201 l was declared a holiday the matter was taken up on 122011 On 12201 1 when this witness was not subjectedto Z crossmexamination and again an adjournment was sought Iearned counsel for the before the trial Court refused to I accept the costsby statingthathe wouldacceptcosts only if the witness Z was crossexamined by the defendants on that daYe However the oo Iearned proxy counsel for the defendants before the trial Court again sought an adjournmentfor the purpose of further crosseexamining the 7 Z said witness which was declined by the trial Court vide the impugned Ll order No party can be allowed to unnecessarilydelay proceedingsin a suit for one reason or the other Under the circumstances no fault can be found with the impugnedorder passedby the trial Court Dismissed Datedl March 0 2011 ak JUDGE 1 1 C 11 1 Rashmi 2013.01.18 13: 02 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document