JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral).- It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that he had filed another CR No. 458 of 2011 in the same suit between the same parties and that in compliance of the order of this Court, he has filed application for placing on record copies of zimni orders passed by learned trial court in this case and however, inadvertently, he mentioned CR No.458 of 2011, whereas the same were meant for this Civil Revision i.e. CR No.336 of 2011. 2. In view of these facts, Registry is directed to place on record CM No.3072-73-CII of 2011 in the instant Civil Revision No.336 of 2011. CM No. 3072 -CII of 2011 3. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.3073-CII of 2011 4. Requests for placing on record Annexures P-5 to P-31 i.e. copies of Zimni orders Annexures P-5 to P-30 and copy of medical report Annexure P-31. 5. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. 6. Application stands disposed of accordingly. CR No. 336 of 2011 7. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 27.8.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Patiala vide which application (Annexure P-1) filed on behalf of petitioners-defendants under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for allowing the petitioners-defendants to crossexamine the witnesses of respondent-plaintiff namely Surender Pal PW-1 and Chandan Singh PW-2 was dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order and the Zimni orders passed by learned trial Court. 9. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that witnesses of respondent-plaintiff could not be cross-examined on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants due to his negligence. However, it is further contended that even respondent-plaintiff has taken so many opportunities to lead his evidence and after availing so many opportunities, two witnesses were examined on 23.5.2007. Further perusal of file shows that on some of the dates, witnesses were not present. However, on most of the dates, cross-examination of the witnesses was deferred at the request of counsel for the petitioners-defendants. Further perusal of file shows that on some of the dates, witnesses were not present. However, on most of the dates, cross-examination of the witnesses was deferred at the request of counsel for the petitioners-defendants. On 18.9.2009, the witnesses were present and however, they were not crossexamined by counsel for the petitioners-defendants and hence, the evidence of respondent-plaintiff was closed by counsel by stating that he was closing the evidence as witnesses of the plaintiff had not been cross-examined. 10. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that brother of the counsel for the petitioners was seriously ill. He was a patient of Cancer and later on, he expired and hence, counsel was not attending his work properly. 11. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial court in passing the impugned order vide which cross-examination on the witnesses of respondent-plaintiff on behalf of petitioners-defendants was ordered as ‘Nil’. However, in the interest of justice one opportunity is granted to the petitioners-defendants to crossexamine two witnesses already examined on behalf of respondent-plaintiff subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost, which is condition precedent. 12. It is also made clear that as evidence of the plaintiff was closed on the ground that witnesses were not cross-examined, learned trial court is directed to give one more opportunity to respondent-plaintiff to adduce any other evidence. 13. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. -----------0.K.B.0------------