C. R. No. 705 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 705 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 02, 2010 Paramjit Kaur .... Petitioner Vs. Kuldip Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant no.1 Paramjit Kaur has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 04.01.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar, whereby application Annexure P-1 moved by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), for recall of prosecution witness plaintiff- respondent no.1 Kuldip Singh for cross-examination, has been dismissed. The plaintiff appeared as witness on 06.12.2007and tendered his affidavit as examination-in-chief. However, his cross-examination was deferred to 20.02.2008 and again to 27.05.2008. On 27.05.2008, plaintiff appeared in the witness-box for his cross-examination and inspite of opportunity, no question was put to the witness in cross-examination and accordingly, the cross-examination was treated as `Nil'. The petitioner alleged in application Annexure P-1 that the C. R. No. 705 of 2010 2 petitioner and her counsel remained under the impression that on 27.05.2008, the case had simply been adjourned for cross-examination of the plaintiff and other evidence. On the next date of hearing, plaintiff's other witnesses were cross-examined and there was no reason for the petitioner not to cross-examine the plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was due to some wrong impression that the plaintiff could not have been cross- examined because otherwise, there was no reason for the petitioner and her counsel not to cross-examine the plaintiff himself, who is a material witness and if his examination-in-chief is allowed to go unchallenged, the whole case of the defendants would be demolished. Apparently, petitioner and her counsel have been at fault in not cross-examining the witness, who remained present in the Court on 27.05.2008. However, cross-examination of the witness i.e. plaintiff himself is very essential and the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to cross- examine the plaintiff, subject to payment of cost. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to plaintiff-respondent no.1 so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and to save respondent no.1 of the expenses he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the purpose of the instant revision petition, if notice of the petition is issued to him. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to give only one more opportunity to the petitioner for cross-examination of plaintiff-respondent no.1 as witness, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent. February 02, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE