Civil Rev. 429 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 429 of 2009 Date : 6.7.2009 Principal, Maharishi vidya Mandir, Rohtak Road, Jind Petitioner vs Kamlesh Malhotra and another Respondents Present Mr. SK Jain, Advocate Mr. A Chaudhary , Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 has filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner and respondent No.2 (defendants) for permanent injunction restraining them from transferring her from Jind to Chikmanglore (Karnataka) or at any other place, besides seeking a declaration that she is entitled to a particular pay scale and usual allowances. She has also claimed a direction against the petitioner to pay salary regularly every month. Anita Sharma, Principal of the Maharishi Vidya Mandir had been examined-in-chief but her cross-examination was deferred and she was partly cross-examined on 8.8.2007. On 13.12.2007 while she was available for cross-examination, two applications were moved, one for a direction to DW Anita Sharma for giving her specimen signatures and hand writing sample and another for producing record, as such the case was adjourned to 15.9.2008. On 15.9.2008 the case was again adjourned to 1.10.2008 and on 1.10.2008 an application for adjournment was filed, which was Civil Rev. 429 of 2009 2 allowed and the matter was adjourned to 24.10.2008. Meanwhile, a revision petition filed by the Principal of Maharish Vidya Mandir i.e. the petitioner had been decided and it was held that DW1 cannot be directed to give her specimen signatures and hand writing sample. However, the revision petition, so far as challenging the order for production of certain documents, was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner did not appear on 24.10.2008 when the case was fixed for her cross-examination and the evidence of the defendant was closed. A review application was filed before the trial court with a submission that the defendant- petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the High Court dated 21.10.2008. The prayer for recording the evidence of the defendant was declined observing that in case the petitioner had felt aggrieved by the order of closing of the evidence on 24.10.2008, she could have availed the remedy of revision before the High Court. The trial court while passing the order dated 6.1.2009 dismissing the review application did not consider the fact that the witness DW1 Anita Sharma had been examined-in-chief and her cross-examination could not completed for various reasons, apparent on the record. There does not appear to be any negligence on her part in completing the evidence. Besides this, the closing of the evidence of the defendants will cause great prejudice to them as fair opportunity apparently seems to have not been given to the defendant- petitioner to compelte the evidence. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, order dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside and a direction is given to the trial court to give one opportunity to the defendants to complete the entire evidence by fixing a particular date. However, it is made clear that the defendants will not be entitled to produce any other Civil Rev. 429 of 2009 3 witness except for DW1 Anita Sharma for cross-examination. The plaintiff- respondent will, however, be entitled to costs of Rs.2000/-. July 6 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE