Civil Revision No.7138 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7138 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 22, 2011 Major Singh .....Petitioner v. Surinder Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.L.Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.27827-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.7138 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 15.11.2011, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bathinda, vide which evidence of petitioner-defendant no.1 was closed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner- defendant no.1 that two witnesses, which are to be examined, namely, DSP Gurmeet Singh and ASI Angrej Singh, are material witnesses as they had conducted an inquiry in this case and in the enquiry it was held that petitioner-defendant no.1 was in possession of the premises in dispute. Civil Revision No.7138 of 2011(O&M) -2- Further contends that however, they have refused to appear before learned trial Court despite service. It is further contended that even on the earlier occasion, they were served and, however, they refused to appear. It is further contended that though an opportunity was granted to petitioner- defendant no.1 by this Court to produce his witnesses at his own responsibility and, however, they being police officials, petitioner-defendant got the service effected upon them by taking dasti summons on the very first date and, however, they did not appear. Hence, in view of these facts one more opportunity can be granted to petitioner-defendant no.1 to examine these witnesses by seeking assistance of the Court if the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the witnesses are necessary to be examined and that the application filed by petitioner-defendant no.1 for examining these witnesses is not vexatious or filed just to delay the decision of the case. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to pass an order as to whether the witnesses sought to be examined are necessary for the decision of the case and that the application for examining these witnesses is not a vexatious one and that the same has not been filed just to delay the decision of the case and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the witnesses are necessary, then requisite assistance under the law be provided to petitioner-defendant no.1 to procure the presence of these witnesses. However, petitioner is 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 respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it Civil Revision No.7138 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 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 respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order. 22.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge