IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1596 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 20th July, 2009. Malkiat Singh Petitioner through Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate Versus Rajinder Singh @ Raja. Respondent through Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dismissing his application to re-call the additional witness – Tej Kaur [PW8] for her cross-examination by him. The facts may be noticed briefly. The respondent -Rajinder Singh @ Raja filed a declaratory suit with a prayer for decree for joint possession claiming himself to be son of the petitioner born out of the latter's wedlock with Tej Kaur. It appears that the respondent – plaintiff did not produce his alleged mother as a witness and his suit was dismissed by the trial Court. In appeal, the respondent moved an application to lead additional evidence and produced Tej Kaur [PW8] and one more witness. The petitioner, as the impugned order suggests, failed to cross-examine Tej Kaur despite opportunity given. His application to re-call Tej Kaur for her cross-examination by him has also been dismissed vide the impugned order. The petitioner is stated to be 80 years old. Tej Kaur is also, according to learned counsel for the respondent, more than 70 years of age. From the impugned order, it can not be said that the petitioner deliberately failed to cross-examine Tej Kaur or there is any delaying tactic adopted by him. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice and fair play to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine Tej Kaur, particularly when she has been produced by the respondent at the appellate stage only. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 28.1.2009 is set aside with a direction to learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur to recall the witnesses examined in additional evidence and permit the petitioner to cross- examine them. The petitioner shall pay Rs.2000/- towards travelling costs to Tej Kaur on the first date of hearing. The parties are directed to appear before the learned first Appellate Court on the date fixed. Disposed of. Dasti. July 20, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE