Civil Revision No. 7645 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7645 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 12th, 2011 Rajinder Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus Paramjit Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Rajinder Singh and Surinder Kaur, the defendants, have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 5.11.2011 (Annexure P6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, whereby an application filed by them for permission to cross- examine respondent No.1 - plaintiff, who had appeared as PW-1, has been dismissed. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17.3.2010. Written statement to the said claim was filed by the petitioners on 23.8.2010. Issues were framed in the case on 25.9.2010. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were leading their evidence. On 19.4.2011, one witness is stated to have Civil Revision No. 7645 of 2011 2 .. been present and was cross-examined and the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed in the affirmative. The case was adjourned to 26.5.2011 for evidence of the defendants. Thereafter, a number of opportunities were given to the defendants to produced their evidence and on 8.9.2011, when it was last opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence, they filed the application under section 151 CPC for permission to cross- examine PW-1, Paramjit Singh, plaintiff No.1. In the application, the defendants have claimed that they had been hotly contesting the suit and their counsel had cross-examined the witnesses of the plaintiffs. According to them, the plaintiff, who appeared as PW-1 could not be cross-examined in this case on account of the fact that there was no time left. It is further claimed that for cross-examination of PW-1, the case was adjourned to 10.8.2011. It is further claimed that due to over-sight, counsel for the defendants noted down the next date as 4.8.2011 and when he came to the court on 4.8.2011, he came to know that the case was fixed for 16.8.2011. It is further claimed that when on 16.8.2011, counsel for the defendants appeared in the court for cross-examination of plaintiff No.1, it came to his notice that cross- examination of the said witness is regarded as 'Nil; opportunity given'. It is claimed that on account of mistake in taking down the date, the plaintiff (PW-1) could not be cross-examined and hence, a prayer was made for permission to the petitioners to cross-examine the said witness. The application is denied to be maintainable by the plaintiffs. It is claimed in the reply that the petitioners did not cross-examine Paramjit Singh (PW-1) inspite of number of opportunities given to them and that after waiting for sufficient time, the court treated the cross-examination Civil Revision No. 7645 of 2011 3 .. of Paramjit Singh as nil. It is also averred that the petitioners knew about the cross-examination of Paramjit Singh having been treated as nil and the order was passed in the presence of the defendants and their counsel. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court did not find any reason to permit the defendants to cross-examine Paramjit Singh (PW-1). It was also observed that the court could not review its own order and so, the application was dismissed. I have heard Mr. Nitin Thatai, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners are nothing but the facts pleaded in the application. After bringing the facts to the notice of the court, he has claimed that proper opportunity was not given to the defendants to cross-examine Paramjit Singh. He has prayed for one opportunity to cross-examine PW-1. As appears from reply of the plaintiffs, it is a fact that the defendants could not cross-examine plaintiff No.1, who appeared as PW- 1. In this situation, the order dated 19.4.2011 mentioning that PW-1 is present and cross-examined seems to be incorrect. Learned trial court, if the defendants had been guilty of delaying the proceedings of the case and were to be punished by treating their cross-examination as nil, should have mentioned these facts in the order dated 19.4.2011. The defendants-petitioners claim that they mistook the case to have been adjourned to 4.8.2011 for cross-examination of Paramjit Singh. However, the order sheet shows that in the meanwhile, opportunities had been given to the defendants to produce their evidence Civil Revision No. 7645 of 2011 4 .. for 26.5.2011, 22.7.2011 and 16.8.2011. There seems to be some mistake on the part of the defendants because had they come to know of treating of cross-examination of PW-1 as nil on 19.4.2011, they would not have waited for long to move the application for permission to cross examine PW-1. However, it can also be a case of negligence on the part of the defendants to pursue their defence. Keeping in view the possibility of facts on both sides, I find that interest of justice would be better served if an opportunity was given to the petitioners to cross-examine Paramjit Singh (PW-1) for which, the defendants-petitioners may be burdened with costs. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to give one opportunity to the defendants- petitioners to cross-examine Paramjit Singh, on which date, Paramjit Singh (PW-1) would be asked to appear for his cross-examination. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 12th, 2011 som