Civil Revision No.5221 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5221 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 29, 2011 Amar Singh Sodhi .....Petitioner v. Lt.Col.Satwant Singh Bedi .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Deepak Arora-I, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.20922-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5221 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 8.6.2011 and 16.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panchkula, vide which request of petitioner-defendant to grant one opportunity for producing himself for cross-examination by counsel for the respondent-plaintiff was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that he is an old person of 71 years of age and used to remain ill. It is further contended that he had to be admitted in Dabur Dhandwantry Civil Revision No.5221 of 2011(O&M) -2- Hospital, Sector 46, Chandigarh on 6.6.2011 and was discharged on 20.6.2011, as is clear from the discharge summary, Annexure P3. It is further contended that due to this reason he could not appear before learned trial Court on 8.6.2011 as he was lying admitted in the hospital and this fact was also brought to the notice of learned trial Court and, however, despite that his request to grant one date was declined. Further contends that though sufficient opportunities were availed by petitioner-defendant for this purpose earlier and however, as affidavit regarding his examination-in-chief is already on record and he is only to be cross-examined and no other witness is to be examined, one opportunity be granted to the petitioner for this purpose, so that his statement be read in evidence. Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner-defendant to produce himself for the purpose of cross- examination by counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner to allow him to produce himself for the purpose of cross- examination so that his statement be read in evidence subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 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- Civil Revision No.5221 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 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. 29.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge