IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7647 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.11.2010 M/s. Rashi Foods Manwala Road, Dhuri .... Petitioner Versus M/s. Dashmesh Commission Agency New Anaj Mandi, Dhuri and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Yogesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.10.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri thereby directing closure of the evidence of the petitioner. Perusal of the record reveals that OW-1 had already been examined and adjournment was sought for producing other witnesses before the trial Court which was declined and evidence of the petitioner was directed to be closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on the date either fixed by this Court or by the learned Trial Court, all the witnesses shall be produced before the learned Trial Court and no further adjournment shall be sought. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Prem Lata Vs. Ram Sarup reported in 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 423 placing C.R. No. 7647 of 2010 2 reliance on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Batala Machine Tools Workshop Coop. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur has held that matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission without any notice 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. In the opinion of this Court, present matter can be disposed of at the admission stage without any notice to the respondent. This Court is of the further opinion that issuing notice to the respondent shall cause unnecessary delay in the disposal of the matter, hence, this Court proposes to decide this petition without notice to the respondent. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind, the golden rule that none should be given walk over and lis between the parties, as far as possible, should be decided at its own merit after affording sufficient opportunities to both the parties to place on record entire evidence and material, this Court direct that learned trial Court shall fix a date for the purpose of petitioner’s evidence. On the date so fixed, petitioner shall produce all the witnesses before the learned trial Court for examination. If, for any reason, examination is not complete on the date so fixed, then learned Court shall be at liberty to hold day-to-day trial or fix any future date, which is convenient to the Court. However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the C.R. No. 7647 of 2010 3 petitioner. Petitioner shall pay cost of ` 5000/- to the respondents on or before the next date so fixed by the trial Court. If respondents feel aggrieved from this order, they shall be at liberty to move this Court for recalling of the order. Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ALOK SINGH) 23.11.2010 JUDGE reena