JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal, J. (Oral):- The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 10.08.2016 whereby his evidence has been closed and the order dated 01.12.2017 whereby the application for recalling of the aforementioned order has been dismissed. 2. Mr. Anand Chhibbar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amitabh Tewari appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondentplaintiff instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, transferring, mortgaging the suit property described in the plaint with a relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.12.2006 and 15.03.2007, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. However, due to the circumstances beyond the control of the counsel representing the petitioner-defendant particularly when the defendant had shifted from Patiala to Delhi, cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-7 was treated as Nil despite having given opportunity. The application for recalling the aforementioned order was moved after six months from passing the same, in view of the ratio decidendi culled out by this Court in Santosh Kumar Berry Vs. Nirmala Devi and others, 2013(1) PLR 404, but it has also been erroneously dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not diligent in moving the application for recalling of the order. He submits that he may be granted two effective opportunities to cross-examine PW-1 and PW-7 subject to terms and conditions which this Court may deem appropriate. 3. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book. The facts aforementioned are not in dispute but the fact of the matter is that parties cannot be prevented from crossexamining witnesses which would have a serious effect on the decision of the case particularly when the stakes are minimum. Therefore, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and to do justice, I deem it appropriate to afford two effective opportunities to the petitioner-defendant to crossexamine the witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-7 as per the date given by the trial Court, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- which shall be condition precedent. 4. In view of the aforementioned, the orders under challenge are set aside and the revision petition is allowed, dispensing with notice to the respondent in order to defray the expenses of litigation of the respondent and to save time of the Court.