IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7779 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: March 31, 2011. Satpal Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Bir Kaur and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 17.07.2007, Annexure P1 and order dated 18.09.2007, Annexure P2, vide which evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was closed by learned trial Court despite the fact that one of the witnesses, namely, R.V.Vashisht i.e. handwriting and fingerprint expert remained to be cross-examined by counsel for the defendants. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court. CR No.7779 of 2009 Perusal of various Zimni orders passed by learned trial Court shows that the witness was examined on 12.12.2006 and however, his cross- examination was deferred at the request of counsel for the defendants. Thereafter, some opportunities were availed by petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence and when no other witness was present, his evidence was closed vide order dated 18.09.2007 and the case was fixed for evidence of respondents-defendants as is clear from impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Evidence of respondents-defendants has also been completed and the case is at the stage of arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he wants PW6, the handwriting and fingerprint expert to be cross-examined on behalf respondents-defendants so that his statement be read in evidence. Though, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned orders as sufficient opportunities were granted to petitioner- plaintiff. However, in view of the fact that examination-in-chief of PW6, R.V.Vashisht has already been recorded and that initially cross-examination was deferred at the request of counsel for the defendants, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-plaintiff in the interest of justice. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is accepted and the impugned orders are modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to produce, PW6 – R.V.Vashisht, handwriting and fingerprint expert at his own responsibility so that he may be cross-examined by counsel for the defendants. However, petitioner is burdened with cost of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. 2 CR No.7779 of 2009 Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 31, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3