JUDGMENT : V.D. Mishra, J.(Oral) : 1. This Revision is directed against the order of Shri Jia Lal Chauhan, Sub-Judge, closing the statement of Shri Bhagat Ram plaintiff. 2. The impugned order reads thus: "This witness is in the witness box for the last more than one hour and the cross-examination is still continuing. Inspite of the repeated directions from the court to put the relevant questions to the witness such a lengthy examination of a witness and that too putting the irrelevant question is neither conducive to the administration of justice and at the same time in providing speedy justice, apart from the wastage of the precious time of the court. In view of this, I close the cross-examination of this witness. 3. The order is indeed very brief. The reasons for stopping the cross-examination of the witness are (i) the witness has been in the witness-box for more than on hour, (ii) irrelevant questions are being put inspite of the directions of the court to put relevant questions. Now as long as relevant questions are being .put to a witness, the time taken for cross-examination is irrelevant. Cross-examination cannot be closed simply on the basis of time taken for it Speedy justice does not mean injustice. I have perused the statement of the witness. It does not show that any irrelevant question was at any stage put to the witness. Under rule 11 of Order 18 C.P.C., it is the duty of the court to record the question, the answer, the objection and the decision of the court when any question is objected to and allowed by the court. I would have expected the Sub-Judge to record the question and also record the objection raised by the opposite party. Indeed, the impugned order does not show that any objection was raised by the opposing counsel to the relevancy of the questions asked. It must be remembered that the right of cross-examination is the most important weapon with a party. It is only by cross-examining a witness that a party can demonstrate the truth. Of course, it does not mean that a party is entitled to put irrelevant or scandalous questions to a witness. 4. It must be remembered that the right of cross-examination is the most important weapon with a party. It is only by cross-examining a witness that a party can demonstrate the truth. Of course, it does not mean that a party is entitled to put irrelevant or scandalous questions to a witness. 4. One of the grounds raised in this revision is that the evidence was in fact being recorded by the Reader of the court while the learned sub-judge was recording evidence in his own hand in another case Kirpal Singh v. Kirpa Ram. Now if that was so, it shows that the judicial officer attach no sanctity to the proceedings of a case. Recording of evidence is a very important part of the case. If the Presiding Officer is really applying his mind to the case, he would be minutely observing the demeanour of the witness. It will help him to assess whether a witness is speaking the truth or not. It is for that reason that the witnesses are examined and cross-examined in an open court in the presence of a Judge. The goings on in a court create confidence not only in the minds of the parties but also in the minds of those persons who decide to watch the proceedings of a court. And this confidence is the' foundation of the respect for the judiciary. It is very essential to demonstrate that justice is being done. I hope that the judicial officers will not give cause for concern in future and try the cases according to law. 5. The revision is not opposed. It is accepted. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Cross-examination of witness Bhagat Ram will now be completed according to law. The record be sent back immediately. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 12th March, 1980 for further proceedings.