CR No. 2405 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2405 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.4.2009 Paramjit Singh .. Petitioner v. Gurmit Ram and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is before this court challenging the order dated 8.4.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby his prayer for re-calling the defendants' witness for further cross-examination has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date when the cross-examination of the defendants' witness was conducted, the counsel had not put certain relevant questions. The same came to the notice of the petitioner when new counsel was engaged and immediately thereafter application was filed. On account of lapse of the counsel, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is a suit which is going on since December, 1996. The witness produced by the defendants was required to be cross-examined by the plaintiff on 7.3.2009 for the reason that he had to leave the country on 8.3.2009. After the cross-examination of one witness was completed, to the other witness, namely, Tirlochan Singh, counsel for the plaintiff refused to cross- examine. In view of this fact, his cross-examination was treated as nil. Thereafter, the petitioner changed his counsel and filed application for re-calling the witness for further cross-examination. Considering the fact that the suit is more than a decade old and the reason given is lapse on the part of the counsel, who refused to cross-examine one witness and one witness was cross-examined by him, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. CR No. 2405 of 2009 [2] Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.4.2009 mk