R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) -THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6. 11. 1997/ 22. 11. 1997. whereby the applicant's right to cross-examine the witness was closed. ( 2 ) BRIEF fact of the case is that respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of the amount against the applicant/defendants. The defendants opposed the same. The plaintiffs evidence was recorded on 4. 11. 1997 and the cross-examination partially was done on 4. 11. 1997 and thereafter, on 5. 11. 1997. The case was fixed for further cross-examination on 6. 11. 1997. The counsel has taken adjournment on the ground that he will have to appear in High Court and therefore, the case was directed to be taken after 12. 00 noon. The case was taken at about 1. 00 p. m. The counsel did not appear, as such the right of cross-examination was closed and the witness was discharged. ( 3 ) ON the same very day, i. e. 6. 11. 1997, at about 2. 00 p. m. , counsel for applicant, filed an application that the counsel was busy in the High Court and could not come in time, and is appearing now and therefore, he may be permitted to cross-examine the witness. This application was ultimately decided on 22. 11. 1997. ( 4 ) IT appears that when the applicant's counsel reached the court at about 1. 40 p. m. , it was brought to the notice of the counsel, that court has closed the right of cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witness, as nobody appeared on behalf of defendant in the court. Thereafter, at about 1. 55 p. m. , an application was filed and a further request was made to cross-examine the witness. But the learned trial judge, after taking into consideration the conduct of the party and the counsel, has rejected the application. Hence, this revision. ( 5 ) CONTENTION of the counsel for applicant is that at about 2. 00 p. m. , an application for permission to cross-examine the witness was filed as after his arrival in court, information was furnished that witness has. left the premises of the court. Hence, this revision. ( 5 ) CONTENTION of the counsel for applicant is that at about 2. 00 p. m. , an application for permission to cross-examine the witness was filed as after his arrival in court, information was furnished that witness has. left the premises of the court. It has been further submitted that at the time of hearing of arguments, an offer was made that witness be recalled for cross-examination at the cost of defendant, but the learned trial Judge directed that the application, will be considered on the next date i. e. 22. 11. 1997 and on. 22. 11. 1997, by rejecting the application and by refusing the permission to cross-examine, the court has acted illegally and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. ( 6 ) AS against it, counsel for non-applicant/plaintiff has submitted that the conduct of the party and the counsel was not proper. They have been dragging the case unnecessarily. The counsel has made reference to the proceedings and submitted that the case was taken in the second half of the day for adjusting the counsel. It has also been submitted that witness had left the court premises after closer of the cross-examination and therefore, there was no question of permission for cross-examination. An application for recalling of the witness ought to have been filed. ( 7 ) THIS court has considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel, who have argued the matter at length. ( 8 ) IT is the fundamental principle of justice, that as far as possible, the parties to litigation, should be given all fair opportunities of hearing and cross-examination of witness. Though, it is also true that the parties and their counsel are also required to co-operate with the court in the disposal of the matter. However, dereliction on the part of counsel should not be allowed to come in the way of justice. ( 9 ) IT is evident from the facts narrated above, that the witness was present in the court premises at about 1. 10 p. m. As the counsel for defendant did not appear, the right of crossexamination was closed and the witness was discharged. The counsel for defendant definitely came to the court prior to 2. 00 p. m. It is difficult to believe that the witness would have left the premises definitely before the arrival of the counsel. 10 p. m. As the counsel for defendant did not appear, the right of crossexamination was closed and the witness was discharged. The counsel for defendant definitely came to the court prior to 2. 00 p. m. It is difficult to believe that the witness would have left the premises definitely before the arrival of the counsel. However, the appearance of the counsel before 2. 00 p. m. , goes to show that the counsel and the parties were vigilant and conscious about hearing of the case and the cross-examination oi the witness. It cannot be said that they were interested in dragging the matter. ( 10 ) IN such a situation, it was the duty of the learned trial court to have offered proper opportunity of further cross-examination of the witness. By closing the right of cross-examination, the party has been put to jeopardy. The learned counsel for non-applicant has referred to a case reported in 1997 (1) JLJ 364 , 1990 JLJ 778 and submitted, that the scope of interference is much less in revision and therefore, in such cases, no interference ought to be made. ( 11 ) THOUGH, it is true that scope of interference is much less in revision, but, while deciding the cases of revision, it has to be seen, as to whether the order of the leraned trial court is likely to create any clog in dispensation of justice between the parties. It. is a case,where the right of cross-examination of the witness has been closed and the prayer for recalling the witness was rejected, despite application having been presented on the same day and within an hour. ( 12 ) IN the opinion of this court, therefore, the trial judge has acted illegally and failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by not permitting cross-examination of the witness. ( 13 ) SINCE the cross-examination of witness was dragged for two days and that was for the adjustment of the defence counsel and therefore, it is necessary that some cost should have been imposed on the defendant. It is, therefore, desirable that defendant is made liable to pay the cost and the expenses of the witness from Madras to this place. ( 14 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated 6. 11. 1997/22. 11. 1997 is setaside at a cost of Rs, 500/ -. It is, therefore, desirable that defendant is made liable to pay the cost and the expenses of the witness from Madras to this place. ( 14 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated 6. 11. 1997/22. 11. 1997 is setaside at a cost of Rs, 500/ -. The defendant shall also bear the expenses of the witness, who is being recalled from Madras to this place. The expenses of to and fro is only to be paid. The expenses is quantified to Rs. 7. 500/ -. The defendant shall deposit the expenses and cost within 10 days from today or on the date of hearing before the trial court hereinafter, revision allowed. .