IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 8003 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.12.2010 Balwinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus Manjit Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. K.S. Boparai, 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 31.8.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana thereby directing closure of the evidence of the defendant-petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, present petition can be disposed of without issuing any notice to the plaintiff-respondent at the admission stage. This Court further finds that issuing notice to the plaintiff-respondent would amount to unnecessary delay in the disposal of the suit, hence, this Court proposes to decide the present petition without issuing notice to the plaintiff-respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the impugned order no development has taken place before the learned Trial Court. 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. 8003 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 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 petitioner. Petitioner shall pay cost of ` 5000/- to the respondent on or before the next date so fixed by the trial Court. If respondent feel aggrieved from this order, he shall be at liberty to move this Court for recalling of the order. Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ALOK SINGH) 08.12.2010 JUDGE reena