IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3845 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.6.2011 Harsh Mahajan … Petitioner versus Naveen Mahajan and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Ms. Deipa Asdhir Dubey, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the defendant No.1 in the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, titled Naveen Mahajan v. Harsh Mahajan and others. He is aggrieved with order dated 7.4.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Division), Pathankot, by dint of which his application seeking permission to cross-examine Naveen Mahajan has been dismissed. The facts are that Naveen Mahajan-respondent No.1 herein, was partly cross-examined on 7.8.2011; however, his further cross- examination was deferred to 7.9.2010 subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-, with the clear indication that if no cross-examination was conducted, the cross-examination shall be treated as Nil. However, on 7.9.2010, no costs were paid though Naveen Mahajan was present and so as the counsel for defendants 3 and 4 but failed to cross-examine the witness and as such, it was treated as Nil. Further, the application seeking permission for cross-examination has been dismissed vide the said impugned order. Hence, this revision. Heard. Counsel for the petitioner seeks only one opportunity for the cross-examination of Naveen Mahajan for which the petitioner is ready to pay exemplary costs to the other side. The facts of the case indicate that C.R. No. 3845 of 2011 -2- the defendants had been callous and so as their counsel for not conducting the cross-examination of Naveen Mahajan despite knowing well that no further opportunity would be given and costs had also not been paid as directed. For this, a plea has been taken that their counsel had not informed them with regard to the deposit of costs and as such, for the negligence on the part of the counsel, the party should not be made to suffer. Naveen Mahajan is the plaintiff and for want of his complete examination, the defendant-petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant to enhance it and not to scuttle the same. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination of said Naveen Mahajan. This order, however, is subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite side before the trial Court. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. June 03, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE