CR No. 2664 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.5.2009 Civil Revision No. 2664 of 2009 (O&M) Smt. Maya Devi .. Petitioner v. Smt. Kamlesh Rani and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Defendant No. 1 is before this Court challenging the order dated 13.12.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby her evidence was closed. Briefly, the facts are that respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondent No. 3 restraining them from interfering in the peaceful cultivating possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, in which the evidence of the plaintiffs was complete and the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants. On 13.12.2008, the petitioner-defendant No. 1 made a statement that she did not want to produce any evidence and her evidence was closed. It is this order which is impugned in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the counsels were abstaining from work, the petitioner appeared in person in the Court on 13.12.2008 and inadvertently stated that she did not want to produce any evidence. Even though she had already prepared the affidavit of evidence on 27.5.2008 and had even filed in court on the same date. The same had not been tendered in evidence by getting her statement recorded and further she could not present herself for being cross-examined. As she was not aware of the intricacies of law, being illiterate, her statement was recorded stating that she does not want to lead any evidence. The submission is that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will get her statement recorded by tendering the affidavit in evidence, which is already on record and further present herself for cross-examination. For the view I am taking, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents as the same would unnecessarily delay the disposal of the CR No. 2664 of 2009 [2] present petition as well as the suit. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the circumstances shown by the petitioner, under which on 13.12.2008 the order was passed on her statement, certainly call for a sympathetic consideration by the Court. It is not at all appreciable that advocates go on strike. It is their moral as well as professional responsibility to appear on behalf of a litigant whose brief they accept. Still considering the fact that even in the absence of counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 1, she appeared in Court and because of certain misunderstanding or other reason she stated that she did not want to lead any evidence, even though her affidavit which was to be produced in evidence as examination-in-chief attested on 27.5.2008, had already been submitted in the Court. However, for getting that affidavit read in evidence she had to get her statement recorded, which was not done. She also did not present herself for cross- examination. This, in my opinion, has certainly prejudiced respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiffs. She is sufferer of the circumstances in which though she had engaged a lawyer but who did not appear on account of their abstaining work, but it is not a case where the case was moving without appearance of the parties. For the lapse, which has been committed by the petitioner, the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 can very well be compensated with costs. Accordingly, in my opinion, interest of justice requires that the petitioner be permitted to produce the affidavit already on record with the court in her evidence as examination-in-chief and further get herself cross-examined, for which one opportunity is granted to her which may be done on the date, when the case was adjourned on 11.5.2009 by the trial court. However, the same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as cost. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for the purpose. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.5.2009 mk