IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (217)

CR-1587-2026 Date of Decision: - 27.02.2026 Lekh Raj Joshi ....Petitioner Versus Sham Sunder Joshi and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harlove Singh Rajput, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Harman Juneja, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner is defendant No.1 and the suit has been filed by respondent No.1 against the present petitioner as well as defendants No.2 and 3. It is argued that defendants No.2 and 3 had admitted the claim in the written statement and have submitted that they have no objection in case the suit is decreed, whereas, it is the present petitioner, who is defendant No.1, who has opposed the suit. It is further submitted that in the said circumstances, it is settled law that the witnesses of the plaintiff are to be first cross-examined by defendants No.2 and 3 who were supporting the case of the plaintiff and thereafter, the present petitioner/defendant No.1, who is the contesting party, is to cross- examine the said witnesses. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of “Motiram Narwari Vs. Lalit Mohan Ghose”, reported as 1920 AIR (Patna) 94 as well as the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of “Chandra Sekhar Pattjoshi Vs. Jogendra Pattjoshi and others”, reported as 2004(2) CivCC 9. It is submitted that the impugned order vide which the prayer made by the petitioner for the plaintiff witnesses to be first cross-examined by the counsel for defendants No.2 and 3 has been rejected, be set aside.

3. Learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.1 has submitted that a perusal of the zimni orders would show that on several dates PW-1 and PW-2 were present and the first date on which they were present is 25.04.2025 and the petitioner/defendant No.1 counsel never made the said request and thus, unnecessarily delayed the proceedings. It is further submitted that even thereafter on several dates PW-1 and PW-2 were present but no such request was made and it is only after a period of more than nine months that the said request has been made. It is stated that in the said circumstances, even in case the defendants No.2 and 3 are to first cross-examine PW1 and PW2, the petitioner should be burdened with cost and only one opportunity should be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the objections raised on behalf of respondent No.1, has submitted that the petitioner would pay a reasonable cost.

5. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioner as well as contesting respondent No.1, the present revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) is set aside with the following observations/directions: -

(i) Petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- as cost within a period of 15 days from today and the said amount would be released by the trial Court to respondent No.1/plaintiff.

(ii) Counsel for the defendants No.2 and 3/respondents No.2 and

3 would first cross-examine the said PW-1 and PW-2.

(iii) After the said cross-examination is completed, only one effective opportunity would be given to the petitioner/defendant No.1 to cross-examine the said two witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2.

(iv) It is made clear that in case, the petitioner does not deposit the cost of Rs.15,000/- within the aforesaid period, then, the present revision petition would be deemed to have been d