-1- 131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4439-2026 Date of Decision:25.05.2026 BALBIR SINGH ...PETITIONER Versus KAVINDER KUMAR ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate Mr. Ravi Ambawata, Advocate for the petitioner. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-landlord being aggrieved by order dated 10.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi (Annexure P-3) whereby cross-examination of RW-3 was treated as NIL and also by order dated 22.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) whereby application under Section 151 CPC, 1908 preferred by petitioner- landlord for recalling of order dated 10.09.2025 was also dismissed. 2. In the present case, RW-1 had appeared on 08.05.2024 and had tendered her affidavit, however, she was not cross-examined. Thereafter, she again appeared on 01.07.2024 and 14.08.2024, but on both the dates, she was not cross-examined by petitioner-landlord and on the same excuse, date was taken again. That the same attitude was repeated in the case of cross- examination of RW-2 who was cross-examined on behalf of petitioner- landlord only after he had appeared on more than five occasions. RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.05.26 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4439-2026 -2- 3. Thereafter, RW-3-Kavinder Kumar had appeared on 16.10.2024 and despite his appearance on eight occasions till 10.09.2025, he was not cross-examined. 4. It is worth noticing that RW-3 remained present on 16.10.2024, 04.12.2024, 22.01.2025, 05.02.2025, 19.02.2025, 12.03.2025, 07.07.2025, 05.08.2025, 04.09.2025, and it was only on 10.09.2025, the cross- examination was treated as NIL. It is worth noticing that petitioner-landlord was put to cost of Rs.500/- for not cross-examining the witness, vide order dated 23.07.2025. Even on 10.09.2025, RW-3 was present since morning, however, none for petitioner-landlord appeared. Rather clerk of learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord came present and sought time and file was kept pending for after lunch session for the purpose of cross- examination. After lunch session again the learned counsel had failed to appear and proxy counsel for petitioner-landlord had sought time for cross- examination. 5. Faced with above-noted conduct/situation, the Court was left with no option but to close the cross-examination of RW-3 by treating same to NIL after giving opportunity to learned counsel for the petitioner- landlord. The petitioner-landlord/his counsel have been conducting the present matter in a very casual manner. In fact RW-3 remained present on eight occasions for his cross-examination, but he was not cross-examined and on every occasion on one pretext or other, petitioner-landlord’s counsel had taken the date which goes to show that there was a planned harassment of the witness by petitioner-landlord or on his behalf. Such conduct of petitioner-landlord/his counsel is neither appreciable nor acceptable. 6. Neither party nor his counsel has any right to harass the RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.05.26 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4439-2026 -3- witnesses who come present for the other side. On filing of affidavit, generally the matter should not be adjourned and cross-examination has to be conducted on the same day. It is only in case of complicated matters, if the Court finds it justified that some time is required to study the affidavit, only for just reasons, cross-examination can be deferred. The subsequent deferment of cross-examination cannot be allowed lightly as has been done in the present case. The Court ought to have acted in a more proactive manner by closing the opportunity being given to petitioner-landlord long back and should not have allowed eight opportunities to the petitioner- landlord to harass the witness. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord asserts that he is ready to compensate the other side by paying the costs. However, present is not a fit case where opportunity can be granted to petitioner-landlord after payment of cost as present is a case where in a planned manner witnesses of respondent-tenant are being harassed by not examining them or repeatedly for more than one year, despite him being present on numerous occasions before the Court. 8. Perusal of zimini orders goes to show that no substantial cause was shown on any date for deferment of cross-examination of RW-3 by petitioner-landlord and it was simply sought at the convenience of petitioner-landlord/his counsel. Such conduct dis-entitles petitioner-landlord for any discretion to allow him to cross-examine the witnesses after payment of the cost. The harassment to the witnesses is one of the causes that people are loosing their faith in the system and unless Court proactively stops this harassment at the hands of parties/their counsels, the faith in the system cannot be restored. RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.05.26 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4439-2026 -4- 9. In the present case, the Presiding Officer is also required to be careful in granting deferment of cross-examination simply on the request of learned counsels. The cross-examination cannot be deferred unless a just as well as pressing cause is shown and recorded by the Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer is duty bound to ensure that witness is not harassed at the hands of other side/their counsels. 10. In the present case, the action taken by Presiding Officer is highly belated and delayed. However, in view of facts and circumstancecs of present case, I do not find any reasons to interfere in the present revision petition. A systematic effort on the part of party/their counsels to harass witnesses cannot be perpetuated by this Court by giving opportunity to cross-examine the witness on payment of some costs. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord has relied upon following judgments:- i. Gursewak Singh Vs. Harjinder Singh and Ors. (CR No.5981 of 2022 decided on 05.01.2023) ii. Jasdip Singh Vs. Harkanwal Singh, 2018 (3) PLR 259 iii. Jatinder Kumar Salhan Vs. Harjinder Kaur Salhan and Ors. (CR No.6101 of 2022 (O&M) decided on 22.12.2022) iv. A. K. Singla and Others Vs. Tejinder Pal Bhalla, 2014 (30) RCR (Civil) 167. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord is of any help to the case of petitioner-landlord. 12. No doubt generally Courts are liberal in granting opportunities to the parties in case of procedural lapses by their counsels as the main RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.05.26 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4439-2026 -5- purpose is to prioritize substantial justice over meagre technicalities. However, present is not a case where counsel has committed a procedural lapse, rather from the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clearly made out that an attempt has been made by petitioner-landlord/his counsel to have browbeat and harass the witnesses as none of the three witnesses who had appeared for respondent-tenant was cross-examined immediately after tendering of their affidavit in examination-in-chief. The witnesses were repeatedly called for their cross-examination, adjournments were repeatedly sought in case of all the RWs i.e. RW-1, RW-2 & RW-3 and in case of RW-3 despite being present on eight occasions, he was not cross- examined. Therefore, present is a case where witnesses are being harassed at the whims and fancies of petitioner-landlord/his counsel. It is a systematic method to harass the witness which cannot be allowed. 13. Present civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 14. The learned Courts below must be aware of the fact that they must act proactively and not adjourn the case merely on the asking of other side, especially when the witness is present for cross-examination. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) 25.05.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.05.26 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document