JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) :- Vinod Kumar plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Defendant’s witness Mahi Pal Singh was being cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The witness was cross-examined for more than eight hours on three dates of hearing and the cross-examination was running into 29 pages. In spite of direction by the trial court, the plaintiff’s counsel did not conclude cross-examination of the witness. On 25.01.2010, the trial court gave time to the plaintiff’s counsel to conclude the cross-examination till 12:00 noon, but the plaintiff’s counsel failed to do so. Consequently, the trial court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide impugned order dated 25.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) closed the crossexamination of the said witness by court order. The plaintiff moved application (Annexure P-7) for review/recall of the said order. The said application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 01.02.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by the trial court. In the instant revision petition, orders Annexures P-6 and P-8 have been impugned. 3. have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be granted opportunity of cross-examination of the aforesaid witness for half an hour only. 5. Perusal of the impugned order Annexure P-6 reveals that the plaintiff’s counsel forced the trial court to pass the said order. As noticed herein above, the witness was cross-examined for eight hours on three dates of hearing and the cross-examination was running into 29 pages. It is a simple suit for permanent injunction, wherein such lengthy cross-examination of a witness is not required. It is thus apparent that the plaintiff’s counsel had been putting irrelevant questions in cross-examination, leaving the important relevant questions, for which prayer is now made for further cross-examination for half an hour only. Had the plaintiff’s counsel been careful in putting important and relevant questions in initial part of the cross-examination, this situation would not have arisen. 6. Be that as it may, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the aforesaid prayer of counsel for the petitioner is allowed, on payment of cost. Had the plaintiff’s counsel been careful in putting important and relevant questions in initial part of the cross-examination, this situation would not have arisen. 6. Be that as it may, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the aforesaid prayer of counsel for the petitioner is allowed, on payment of cost. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the defendant-respondent so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and to save the respondent of the expenses it may have to incur in engaging counsel in the instant revision petition, if notice is issued to the respondent. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant only one opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine DW Mahi Pal Singh for maximum time of half an hour only, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent. ------------------