Revisions petitioner challenged an order treating cross-examination of a witness as nil due to counsel's absence. The court granted one opportunity for cross-examination upon payment of costs without requiring advance notice.
One opportunity granted to defendants to cross-examine PW-4 on payment of Rs. 1,000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 1454 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.3.2012
Amrik Singh and another
................Petititoners
vs.
Nazar Singh
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
K.C. Puri, J.
Challenge in this revision petition is the order dated 15.2.2012 vide which the cross examination of PW-4 was treated as
Nil as counsel for the defendants did not turn up for cross examination of that witness.
Notice is not required to be given as it would further delay the proceedings.
The rules and procedures are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. PW-4 is stated to have been partly cross examined and remaining cross examination is to be conducted by the defendants.
So, keeping in view whole of the circumstances, one opportunity is granted to the defendants to cross examine PW-4, on payment of ` 1,000/- as costs.
The petition stands disposed of.
( K.C. Puri ) 15.3.2012 Judge chugh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether notice is required to be given for allowing a belated cross-examination.
Whether an opportunity is granted to the defendants to cross-examine a witness who was treated as nil.
Amrik Singh and another
Nazar Singh
K.C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
