169 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5115-2026 Date of Decision:- 21.07.2026 SURESH CHANDER AND OTHERS ....Petitioners Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Prashant Puri, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners/defendants have filed the present civil revision assailing the order dated 25.07.2024 (Annexure P-3), whereby the cross- examination of the respondent/plaintiff (PW-1) was treated as 'Nil'. They have also challenged the subsequent order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-7), whereby their application seeking recall of PW-1 Subhash Chander for cross-examination was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants pointed out that Subhash Chander respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration by challenging the transfer deeds dated 05.11.2024 as illegal, null and void along with consequential relief of permanent injunction (Annexure P-1). Said civil suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 6 by filing written statement (Annexure P-2). Plaintiff’s evidence was going on when the cross- SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.22 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5115-2026 -2- examination of Subhash Chander PW1 was treated as ‘Nil’ vide order dated 25.07.2024. Application to recall the said witness was also declined vide order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-7). 3. On the very onset, learned counsel representing petitioners/ defendants prayed for one opportunity to cross-examine the witness subject to imposing reasonable costs. It is pointed out that both the parties are closely related, in case the petitioners/defendants are not permitted to cross- examine the witness their interest will be prejudiced. Hence the present civil revision. 4. Facts relating to present case are clear from the documents annexed with the petition. No purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, service of respondent/plaintiff is dispensed with. 5. I have considered the aforesaid factual position. The civil suit filed by Subhash Chander was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence and his cross- examination as PW1 was to be conducted. The respondent/plaintiff is a senior citizen who had tendered his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and thereafter he was appearing in the Court for cross-examination but the counsel representing the petitioners/defendants sought an adjournment one after the other. Zimni orders (Annexure P-6) indicate that even costs was imposed to compel the counsel representing the petitioners/defendants to cross-examine (PW1) but the counsel failed to cross-examine the witness, as a result his cross-examination was treated as ‘Nil’ on 25.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). Application- SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.22 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5115-2026 -3- to recall this witness was also declined vide order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-7). There is clear cut lapse on the part of the learned counsel representing the petitioners/defendants before the trial Court. Despite appearance of witness time and again, the adjournment was requested which finally led to the passing of aforesaid impugned orders. At present, the plaintiff has already closed his evidence and the defendants are yet to lead their evidence. At the same time it cannot be ignored that cross-examination of Subhash Chander as PW1 is material for proper adjudication of the case. The rights of both the parties are involved. It is in the interest of justice that case is decided on the basis of evidence led by both the parties. The respondent/plaintiff can be compensated by imposing costs. Therefore, by taking lenient view present civil revision is allowed and the impugned orders dated 25.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) and 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-7) are, hereby, set aside. The petitioners/defendants are granted one effective opportunity to cross-examine Subhash Chander (PW-1), subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff. Copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned. 6. Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 21.07.2026 snd Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.22 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document