The central legal point established is that a party should not be denied the opportunity for cross-examination, especially when a genuine request is made, and that the court has the discretion to grant time for cross-examination and impose costs for adjournments.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 6.3.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Rajpura, whereby, an opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting and finger print expert has been treated as nil.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 3.2.1995. Respondents-plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 11.1.2017. Written statement to the amended plaint was filed by petitioners-defendants on 16.3.2016 and thereafter replication to the written statement was also filed on 12.5.2016. Issues were framed on 14.7.2016 and the case was fixed for plaintiffs' evidence on 22.7.2016. The handwriting and finger print expert, namely, Sh. R.V. Vashisht was examined by the plaintiffs as PW-9 on 6.1.2017. The petitioners-defendants moved an application for cross-examination of said witness, which was allowed vide order dated 23.1.2017. Said witness came present on 6.1.2017 but he could not be cross-examined and the opportunity to cross-examine handwriting and finger print expert was treated as Nil vide order dated 6.3.2017, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners-defendants will suffer an irreparable loss if they are not allowed to cross-examine handwriting and finger print expert, namely, Sh. R.V. Vashisht. Learned counsel further submits that the mistake on the part of petitioners-defendants was bona fide and no prejudice would be caused to the either party. Learned counsel prays that one effective opportunity be given to the petitioners-defendants to cross-examine handwriting and finger print expert, namely, Sh. R.V. Vashisht and the petitioners are also ready to compensate the other party in monetary terms.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the impugned order and other documents available on the file.

5. Without issuing notice to the other party as it will not only prolong the case but will unnecessary burden the other party with expenses, the case is being decided.

6. Undisputedly, Sh. RV Vashisht, handwriting and finger print expert tendered his evidence in examination-in-chief on 6.1.2017. Thereafter an application was moved by the petitioners-defendants for cross-examination of said witness, which was allowed on 23.1.2017. The witness could not be cross-examined and accordingly the impugned order dated 6.3.2017 was passed, whereby, an opportunity to cross-examination was treated as Nil. The cross-examination of handwriting and finger print expert, namely, Sh. RV Vashisht could not be done as counsel for the petitioners-defendants wanted his cross-examination in the presence of some handwriting and finger print expert. As per case of the petitioners, efforts were made but nobody was available on that particular day and the trial Court was also apprised of the difficulty but in spite of that the opportunity to cross-examine handwriting and finger print expert, namely, Sh. RV Vashisht was treated as Nil vide order dated 6.3.2017. In case there is lapse/mistake on the part of the petitioners it was because of the act of counsel and same cannot be considered without any bona fide reason. The trial Court could have given one opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting and finger expert subject to imposition of cost but only on the ground that Court time was over, the opportunity to cross-examine was treated as Nil.

7. Provisions of Rule 1 Order 17 CPC deals with grant of time and adjournments, which are reproduced as under:-

"1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing.-(1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit, grant time to the parties or to any of them, a