C. R. No. 2856 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 2856 of 2009
Date of Decision : May 19, 2009
Gurdial Singh and another .... Petitioners
Vs.
Baldev Raj .... Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. O. P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate
for the petitioners.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
This is revision petition by defendants assailing order dated
22.09.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Jalandhar.
Plaintiff-respondent appeared in the witness-box on 22.08.2008
and tendered his affidavit as examination-in-chief. His cross-examination
was deferred to 22.09.2008. On 22.09.2008, plaintiff-respondent stepped
into the witness-box for cross-examination. However, no cross-examination
of the witness was conducted on behalf of the petitioners inspite of
opportunity and the cross-examination was recorded as `Nil’ (opportunity
given). In order Annexure P-1 dated 22.09.2008, learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division) mentioned that one witness has been cross-examined.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point
out any infirmity in the impugned order. It was contended that two orders
C. R. No. 2856 of 2009 2
were passed on 22.09.2008 i.e. Annexure P-1 showing that the witness was
cross-examined and Annexure P-2 showing that the cross-examination was
`Nil’ (opportunity given) and these are contradictory orders. The contention
is completely misconceived because Annexure P-2 is not order of the Court,
but is evidence sheet of witness, who appeared for cross-examination and
the petitioners did not want to cross-examine the witness and therefore, his
cross-examination was mentioned to be `Nil’ (opportunity given). In the
zimni order (Annexure P-1), it was rightly mentioned that the witness has
been cross-examined because the cross-examination was concluded as the
cross-examination was `Nil’ (opportunity given).
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that one opportunity
for cross-examination of the witness may be granted to the petitioners.
Although nothing has been mentioned in the revision petition as to why the
witness was not cross-examined on 22.09.2008 inspite of opportunity, yet
ends of justice would be met if one opportunity is granted to the petitioners
for cross-examination of the aforesaid witness on payment of heavy cost
because it appears that counsel for the petitioners in the lower court was
acting with callousness and negligence because otherwise, the plaintiff-
respondent would not have gone without cross-examination. I intend to
dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to plaintiff-
respondent so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to
save the respondent of the expenses he may have to incur in engaging
counsel for the revision petition, if notice is issued to him.
In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is disposed of by
directing the trial court to grant one opportunity to the petitioners for cross-
examination of plaintiff-respondent, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as
cost precedent.
May 19, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE