Civil Revision No.3468 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3468 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 25, 2011 State of Haryana through Superintendent of Police, Ambala. .....Petitioner v. Ex.S.I.Sanjeev Kumar Duggal .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Inderesh Goel, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 6.4.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambala, vide which evidence of petitioner was closed by court order. 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- State that on 2-3 dates of hearing, witnesses of the petitioner were present and however, they could not be examined due to request of counsel for the respondent-defendant. It is further contended that only two official witnesses remain to be examined, i.e., Record Keeper of Magadh University, Bodh Gaya in Bihar, alongwith record and another is Accountant of the office of Superintendent of Police, Ambala, and that process fee and diet money in respect of these witnesses were also deposited Civil Revision No.3468 of 2011(O&M) -2- by petitioner-State and summons were also issued 2-3 times, however, they could not be served. It is further contended that only one opportunity be granted to petitioner-State to examine both these witnesses at its own responsibility. Though sufficient opportunities were availed by petitioner- State to adduce evidence and however, in view of the fact that the witnesses remain to be examined are official witnesses and that few dates were also given for evidence for no fault of petitioner as witnesses were present and, however case was adjourned on request being made on behalf of the opposite counsel. On one date of hearing Presiding officer was on leave and hence, the case was adjourned. Hence, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner to examine both these witnesses at its own responsibility and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to examine the aforesaid remaining two witnesses, i.e., officials from the office of Comptroller of Examination, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya in Bihar, alongwith record and from the office of Superintendent of Police, Ambala, alongwith record, at its own responsibility by taking dasti summons and, however, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to examine these witnesses. Petitioner is also burdened with cost of `10,000/-, which is a condition precedent. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued 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 Civil Revision No.3468 of 2011(O&M) -3- proceedings filed by petitioner-plaintiff. 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 respondent to get this revision petition revived if he feels dissatisfied with this order. Disposed of accordingly. 25.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.3468 of 2011(O&M) -4- -