Jaswant Singh, J. - (1.) DEFENDANT /Petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 10.1.2011 (P1) whereby cross examination of Defendant/Petitioner and one witness namely Malkiat Singh, on behalf of the Petitioner was treated nil, as well as the order dated 23.2.2011 whereby the application moved by the Defendant/Petitioner for recalling said order dated 10.1.2011 was dismissed.
(2.) RESPONDENT /Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,95,912/ - against the Petitioner/Defendant The Petitioner is contesting the suit and is being represented by a counsel. On 10.1.2011 Respondent/Plaintiff Gurdial Singh and one witness namely Malkiat Singh were present for their cross examination, however, as the counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant was out of station, proxy counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant made a request for adjournment. The prayer made on behalf of the Petitioner was not acceded to and the cross examination of aforesaid two witnesses on behalf of Petitioner/Defendant was treated as nil vide order dated 10.1.2011. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved an application for recalling the said order dated 10.1.2011, which too was dismissed by the ld. trial court. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that though three opportunities had already been granted to the Defendant/Petitioner to cross examine the aforesaid two witnesses, however, in the absence of the counsel for the Petitioner, the witnesses could not be cross examined. It is submitted that due to inability of his counsel to come present on 10.1.2011, the cause of the Petitioner should not be permitted to suffer, as it will cause grave prejudice to the case of the Petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Foodworld Super Markets Ltd. And Anr. v. H. Sujan Singh and Ors., 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 950. Accordingly, it is prayed that in the aforesaid facts, the Petitioner be granted one last opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid two witnesses.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the Defendant/Petitioner I deem it just and expedient in the interest of justice, to grant one last opportunity to the Defendant/Petitioner to cross examine the aforesaid two witnesses on a date to be fixed by the trial court, as it is well settled principle of law that rules of procedure are handmaids of justice meant to serve the cause of justice and not to impede the same.;