CR-4412-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (333) CR-4412-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: - 23.09.2025 Radha Krishan Kuthiala (D) through LR ....Petitioner Versus Retd. Brig. SC Kuthiala and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiapur. 2. On 30.07.2025, this Court was pleased to pass the following order: - “Present:- Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, and Ms. Bhumija Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. *** CM-14244-CII-2025 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for revival of the NARESH KUMAR 2025.09.25 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CR-4412-2025 (O&M) -2- above-mentioned revision petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated 17.07.2025 is recalled and the main petition is restored to its original number. CR-4412-2025 Inter alia, contends that in the criminal case in which respondent No.1 is an accused, the said respondent No.1 is appearing in person and for the same the zimni orders have been highlighted including the zimni order dated 06.03.2024 which show that the said respondent No.1 had appeared along with his counsel. It is submitted that the said criminal proceeding is also in the same judicial complex as the civil suit in question, yet, an application had been filed by respondent No.1 for getting his examination done through video conferencing and the said application was moved when the case was fixed for 16.02.2023, i.e., prior to the date on which the accused had appeared before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. It is further submitted that although, the petitioner would not have opposed the prayer of examination through video conferencing but since the accused is appearing in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in person, thus, it would be in the interest of justice as well as for the purpose of effective cross-examination that respondent No.1 appears in person before the Civil Court also. Notice of motion be issued to respondent No.1 only for 07.08.2025. Notice re: stay as well. To be taken up immediately after the urgent matters. July 30, 2025” 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that respondent No.1 would appear in the trial Court on 03.11.2025 and since respondent No.1 is more than 80 years of age, thus, it is prayed that counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court be NARESH KUMAR 2025.09.25 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CR-4412-2025 (O&M) -3- directed to cross-examine the respondent No.1 on the said date itself and also to complete the cross-examination of respondent No.1 on the same date. It is further submitted that even the trial Court be requested to complete the cross-examination of respondent No.1 on the said date itself. It is submitted that the affidavit (examination-in-chief) of respondent No.1 is yet to be submitted and the said affidavit would be submitted within a period of two weeks from today and a copy of the same would be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial court and has further prayed that the said affidavit be exhibited on the date when the respondent No.1 appears in the Court and the petitioner be directed not to take an adjournment on the said account. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner has no objection to the said course of action, keeping in view the age of respondent No.1. 5. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1, the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the present revision petition is disposed of with the following observations/directions: - (i) Counsel for respondent No.1 would give a copy of the affidavit (examination-in-chief) of respondent No.1 to the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court within a period of 15 days from today. (ii) Respondent No.1 would appear in person for the purpose of NARESH KUMAR 2025.09.25 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CR-4412-2025 (O&M) -4- exhibition of the said affidavit/examination-in-chief and also for the purpose of cross-examination on 03.11.2025 on or before 11.00 A.M. (iii) Petitioner would complete the cross-examination of said respondent No.1 on the said date itself so that respondent No.1, who is more than 80 years of age, is not required to appear before the trial Court again. (iv) The trial Court is requested to complete the cross- examination of said respondent No.1 on 03.11.2025 itself. ( VIKAS BAHL ) September 23, 2025 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2025.09.25 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement