Civil Revision No.1590 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1590 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 17, 2011 Madan Lal .....Petitioner v. Inderjit Sodhi and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.G.S.Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.6419-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.1590 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 18.10.2010, Annexure P6, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Batala, vide which evidence of applicant -petitioner on the application for bringing on record the legal heirs/representatives of Smt.Vidya Wati (deceased) defendant no.1 has been closed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner appeared as his own witness as AW4 and he was partly cross- examined by counsel for the respondents and further cross-examination was deferred on 24.4.2007, as is clear from Annexure P5, statement of petitioner. It is further contended that cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the respondents as respondents wanted to confront the witness with some documents from original file of Civil suit No.192 Civil Revision No.1590 of 2011(O&M) -2- dated 22.5.1994 titled as Madan Lal v. Vidya Wanti and, however, the said file has not been summoned so far. Hence, it is contended that evidence of petitioner has been closed by learned trial Court without taking into consideration this fact. It is further contended that petitioner is not to lead any other evidence and that his only request is that his cross- examination be completed by counsel for the defendants so that his statement may be read in evidence. In view of these facts, the impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant an opportunity to petitioner to appear as his own witness for the purpose of completion of his cross-examination by counsel for the defendants by summoning the file, if not already summoned, as per order dated 24.4.2007. Disposed of accordingly. 17.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge