Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR NO.5497 OF2013(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 11th SEPTEMBER2013Sant Kumar ….
Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ….
Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL **** Present : Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for petitioner.
**** L.N.MITTAL, J.
(ORAL) CM No.18750-CII of 2013 The application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case Sant Kumar-plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 13.08.2013 Annexure P-2 passed by the trial Court thereby closing right of plaintiff-petitioner to cross- examine two witnesses of the defendants namely M.K.Arora and Dharambir, although vide order dated 22.08.2013 (Annexure P-3).cross-examination of DW Dharambir by plaintiff was allowed.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that DW M.K.Arora is Principal of defendant no.3-College and therefore, his cross-examination is essential.
Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for cross-examination of the said witness.
-2- CR No.5497 of 2013 (O&M) I have carefully considered the matter.
Perusal of zimni orders of the trial Court Annexure P-1 coupled with impugned order Annexure P-2, reveals that DW M.K.Arora came present in Court at Rohtak from Palwal on many dates of hearing and case was adjourned for his cross-examination on some dates of hearing on request of counsel for the plaintiff.
Even on 13.08.2013, counsel for the plaintiff was awaited till 3.45 pm but as he was out of station and did not come back.
Having said as aforesaid, the ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for cross-examination of the aforesaid witness on payment of costs, because otherwise it would result in miscarriage of justice.
If Principal of defendant no.3-college itself is not cross-examined at all, his examination-in-chief shall be deemed to have been admitted by the plaintiff and consequently the plaintiff would be defeated by default.
I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to defendants/respondents so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of the expenses they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice thereof is issued to them.
Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed and trial Court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the plaintiff for cross- examination of DW M.K.Arora, subject to payment of `3,000/- as costs precedent to defendant no.3.
11th September, 2013 (L.N.MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE Raj Kumar 2013.09.12 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh