IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7615 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.11.2010 Darshan Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus Ajit Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the petitioners 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs-petitioners are assailing the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, thereby directing closure of the evidence of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners states that on or before the date fixed two PWs were already cross examined, however, other PWs could not be produced for the cross- examination, hence, adjournment was sought which was wrongly declined by the trial Court and evidence of the plaintiffs was directed to be closed. Learned counsel further states that on the date either fixed by this Court or by the learned Trial Court, remaining witnesses shall be produced before the learned Trial Court for cross- examination 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. 7615 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, petitioners 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. 7615 of 2010 3 petitioners. Petitioners 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) 22.11.2010 JUDGE reena