In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 189 of 2008 Date of decision: April 29, 2009 Parveen Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Sunita Rani and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J None has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service. On examination of the statement dated 18.9.2007, conducted upon Sunita Rani (PW4), it transpires that she had already been cross examined at length by the counsel but he was still not satisfied with the same and continued cross examining the witness despite pointed objection by the court that he was asking irrelevant questions. The counsel pestered the court to record that he was asking irrelevant questions. Despite the interruption made by the court, learned counsel did not abstain. This conduct on the part of the counsel Mr. B.N. Pattu, is not approved. After the court had closed the cross examination by order, the petitioner has sought permission to further cross examine the witness, while stating that notwithstanding the fact that counsel may have any grudge against the court, the parties should not be made to suffer for the fault on the part of the counsel. Anyway, while taking care of imparting complete justice to the parties and lest the petitioner may suffer for the conduct of his counsel, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the trial court to provide Civil Revision No. 189 of 2008 2 *** opportunity to the defendant to complete his cross examination over Sunita Rani (PW4) subject to costs of Rs.5000/-. The court would indicate the date of appearance of the witness and it is further made clear that the counsel for the defendant would supply the questionnaire to the court which would be replied by the witness. In case the court finds any question to be irrelevant, it could decline by passing an order and fate of these orders would be subject to discussion at the time of appeal. April 29, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge