Civil Revision No.5123 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5123 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 25, 2011 Gurjit Singh Dhaba .....Petitioner v. Gurdev Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.20629-30-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures P1/ and P/2. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.5123 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 29.7.2011, vide which learned trial Court has ordered for striking off/deleting the examination-in-chief of PW8-Inderjit Singh Narula, already recorded. 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 the petitioner that though one opportunity was granted by this Court to petitioner-plaintiff to adduce additional evidence as per the petition filed by the petitioner- Civil Revision No.5123 of 2011(O&M) -2- plaintiff and, however, he had summoned some witnesses on the very first date, including PW8-Inderjit Singh Narula, who is an official witness from the State Bank of India, Ferozepur Regional Officer, deputed by Head Office Chandgiarh alongwith the record, which were allowed by learned trial Court and that his examination-in-chief already recorded and that when the case was fixed for his cross-examination, the objection was raised by the other side. It has further been contended that petitioner is not to lead any other evidence and that only cross-examination of this witness is to be conducted so that his statement be read in evidence. Hence, in view of the fact that when PW8-Inderjit Singh Narula was ordered to be summoned by learned trial Court and when his examination-in-chief already recorded, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner to produce this witness for the purpose of cross-examination. Impugned order passed by learned trial Court ordering for striking off/deleting examination-in-chief from the record, after his examination, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Moreover, 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 take into consideration the deposition of PW8-Inderjit Singh Narula, who was already allowed to be examined by it, and grant one opportunity to the petitioner to produce this witness for the purpose of cross-examination at his own responsibility. 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.5123 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. 25.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge