CR-4646-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sudhira Devi and Others Rajveer Singh CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Naveen Bawa, MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.01.2025 Ludhiana, whereby has been treated to be Nil 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner respondent-plaintiff preferred a suit of the agreement to sell dated 01.10.2020 and further a decree for declaration to the effect that the sale deed allegedly executed by petitioner No.1 petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal, null and void. Upon notice, petitioners have filed their written statement and vide order dated 10.07.2023 issues were framed and the case was adjourned to 08.08.2023 for the evidence of the respondent 15.03.2024, PW1 and PW2 came present, but on the request of petitioner No.1, the case was adjourned to 25.04.2024 for cross Thereafter on various dates plaintiff witnesses were not appeared and ultimately on 02.01.2025, the impugned order was passed whereby the opportunity to defendant petitioner No.1 to cross (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : Sudhira Devi and Others VERSUS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned 02.01.2025 passed by the learned whereby opportunity to petitioner No.1 to cross has been treated to be Nil. Learned counsel for the petitioners plaintiff preferred a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.10.2020 and further a decree for declaration to the effect that the sale deed allegedly executed by petitioner No.1 petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal, null and void. Upon notice, petitioners have filed their written statement and vide order dated 10.07.2023 issues were framed and the case was adjourned to 08.08.2023 for the evidence of the respondent PW1 and PW2 came present, but on the request of petitioner No.1, the case was adjourned to 25.04.2024 for cross-examination of plaintiff witnesses. Thereafter on various dates plaintiff witnesses were not appeared and ultimately on 01.2025, the impugned order was passed whereby the opportunity to defendant petitioner No.1 to cross-examine the witnesses has been treated as Nil. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4646-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 11.09.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioners. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, opportunity to petitioner No.1 to cross-examine the witnesses, s/defendants would contend that possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.10.2020 and further a decree for declaration to the effect that the sale deed allegedly executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal, null and void. Upon notice, petitioners have filed their written statement and vide order dated 10.07.2023 issues were framed and the case was adjourned to 08.08.2023 for the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff. On PW1 and PW2 came present, but on the request of petitioner No.1, the examination of plaintiff witnesses. Thereafter on various dates plaintiff witnesses were not appeared and ultimately on 01.2025, the impugned order was passed whereby the opportunity to defendant examine the witnesses has been treated as Nil. - The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned Civil Judge, Junior Division, examine the witnesses, the possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.10.2020 and further a decree for declaration to the in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal, null and void. Upon notice, petitioners have filed their written statement and vide order dated 10.07.2023 issues were framed and the tiff. On PW1 and PW2 came present, but on the request of petitioner No.1, the examination of plaintiff witnesses. Thereafter on various dates plaintiff witnesses were not appeared and ultimately on 01.2025, the impugned order was passed whereby the opportunity to defendant- TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4646-2025 (O&M) 3. Learned counsel further submits that it was the plaintiff witnesses who were not appearing for their cro after imposing of the costs. There is no fault of petitioners. He, however, prays that the impugned order be set aside and opportunity to cross 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case in hand. 5. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the learned trial Court was justified in closing the ri defendant to cross examination is a valuable right flowing from the principles of natural justice, as it is the most effective mode of testing the veracity of a witness. Denial of would amount to denial of fair opportunity and, in effect, denial of fair trial, which is the foundation of administration of justice. The have held that a litigant should not suffer irreparable prejudice on account of a technical lapse or inadvertence, particularly when the matter can be compensated by costs. 6. In the present case the plaintiff witnesses is, therefore, of the considered view that in the interest of justice, and to uphold the principles of natural justice, the impugned order deserves to be Conclusion 7. Resultantly, keeping in view the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The defendant is granted one (O&M) Learned counsel further submits that it was the plaintiff witnesses who were not appearing for their cross-examination about last so many dates even after imposing of the costs. There is no fault of petitioners. He, however, prays that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioners to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case in hand. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the learned trial Court was justified in closing the ri defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness examination is a valuable right flowing from the principles of natural justice, as it is the most effective mode of testing the veracity of a witness. Denial of would amount to denial of fair opportunity and, in effect, denial of fair trial, which is the foundation of administration of justice. The have held that a litigant should not suffer irreparable prejudice on account of a technical lapse or inadvertence, particularly when the matter can be compensated In the present case closing of the defendant’s right the plaintiff witnesses has resulted in serious prejudice to the defence. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that in the interest of justice, and to uphold the principles of natural justice, the impugned order deserves to be Resultantly, keeping in view the contention of learned counsel for the , the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The defendant is granted one -2- Learned counsel further submits that it was the plaintiff witnesses examination about last so many dates even after imposing of the costs. There is no fault of petitioners. He, however, prays that the petitioners/defendants be given one sses. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the learned trial Court was justified in closing the right of the examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. It is well settled that cross examination is a valuable right flowing from the principles of natural justice, as it is the most effective mode of testing the veracity of a witness. Denial of such right would amount to denial of fair opportunity and, in effect, denial of fair trial, which is the foundation of administration of justice. The Courts in catena of judgments have held that a litigant should not suffer irreparable prejudice on account of a technical lapse or inadvertence, particularly when the matter can be compensated losing of the defendant’s right to cross-examine has resulted in serious prejudice to the defence. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that in the interest of justice, and to uphold the principles of natural justice, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, keeping in view the contention of learned counsel for the , the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The defendant is granted one - Learned counsel further submits that it was the plaintiff witnesses examination about last so many dates even after imposing of the costs. There is no fault of petitioners. He, however, prays that given one I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the The short question that arises for consideration in this revision ght of the . It is well settled that cross- examination is a valuable right flowing from the principles of natural justice, as it such right would amount to denial of fair opportunity and, in effect, denial of fair trial, which in catena of judgments have held that a litigant should not suffer irreparable prejudice on account of a technical lapse or inadvertence, particularly when the matter can be compensated examine has resulted in serious prejudice to the defence. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that in the interest of justice, and to uphold the Resultantly, keeping in view the contention of learned counsel for the dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The defendant is granted one TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4646-2025 (O&M) effective opportunity to cross of costs of Rs.5000/ date fixed. It is made clear that failing to terms of this order, the petitioners would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this order having any bearing on trial. 8. The revision petition is 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 11, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) effective opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness of costs of Rs.5000/- to be deposited before the trial Court on or before the next It is made clear that failing to cross terms of this order, the petitioners would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this order having any bearing on trial. The revision petition is allowed in the a Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- examine the plaintiff’s witnesses subject to payment to be deposited before the trial Court on or before the next cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses terms of this order, the petitioners would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - ject to payment to be deposited before the trial Court on or before the next examine the plaintiff witnesses in terms of this order, the petitioners would not be entitled to any further opportunity for the said purpose and the trial Court would proceed with the matter without this TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document