TILAK RAJ AND ANR. Vs. ROMESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by November 14, 2008 order of Munsiff, Hiranagar closing defendants' right to cross -examine the plaintiff -respondent, for non -availability of their learned Counsel on seven occasions, the petitioners have filed this Revision Petition questioning the order and seeking its setting aside, urging that the order impugned in the petition has deprived them of their right to cross -examine the plaintiff. According to their learned Counsel, notwithstanding the non -availability of their counsel, they could not have been denied opportunity by the trial Court to cross -examine the plaintiff themselves, unless provided opportunity therefor. An application seeking condonation of delay in fling the Revision Petition too has been moved.

(2.) WHILE not opposing the petitioners' prayer for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, respondent's learned Counsel, Mr. Mansotra, submitted that the trial Court has rightly closed the respondent's cross -examination by the petitioners for their willful dilatory tactics adopted in the case to protract the litigation by avoiding the appearance of their Counsel for respondent's cross -examination and the order impugned may not thus need interference in revision.

(3.) WHEN a Counsel engaged in a case is found avoiding deliberately his appearance in the case, thereby stalling the proceedings in a pending lis, the courts may proceed with the case notwithstanding the non -appearance of the defaulting counsel; but after providing an opportunity to the appearing party, its right, of participation in the proceedings and doing all such acts which it had intended its Counsel so to do.