Civil Revision No.4627 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4627 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 2, 2011 Ram Sarup and another .....Petitioners v. Shiva .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of impugned order dated 21.7.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Panchkula, vide which evidence of the petitioners-defendants has been closed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Contends that only DW-Jaswant Singh remains to be cross- examined, who could not come present on the date fixed as he was out of station and application to this effect was also moved before learned trial Court. It is further contended that this witness had come to the Court on earlier dates as well and has tendered affidavit of his examination-in-chief much earlier, however, in the meantime, suit was also dismissed in default and later on it was restored and date was also sought on behalf of the Civil Revision No.4627 of 2011(O&M) -2- respondent-plaintiff for cross-examination of this witness. Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to petitioners-defendants to produce DW-Jaswant Singh for the purpose of cross-examination by counsel for respondent-plaintiff so that his deposition be read in evidence and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioners-defendants to produce their witness, namely, DW-Jaswant Singh for the purpose of cross-examination by counsel for respondent-plaintiff so that his deposition be read into evidence. However, they are burdened with cost of `5,000/-, which shall be a condition precedent. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:- “ We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his Civil Revision No.4627 of 2011(O&M) -3- behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner- Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” However, liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revision petition revived if he feels dissatisfied with this order. 2.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge