C.R. No. 40 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 40 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 8, 2009 The Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and another .. Petitioners v. Ishwar Singh .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 1.8.2008, passed by learned Labour Court II, Gurgaon, whereby evidence of the petitioners was closed by order of the Court as the witnesses were not produced in spite of last opportunity. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondent, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the petition before the Labour Court. It is alleged that the person, who was to appear as witness had, in fact, gone to the Court. However, the address, as was mentioned on the file available with him, was different than where the court was being held and in the process, he got late and could not reach the court in time. Immediately on the same date in the after-noon, an application was filed praying for recording of the evidence of the petitioners, but the same was not recorded, as it was noticed that the respondent-applicant had already left the Court. Notice in the application was issued. However, the same was also rejected vide order dated 29.8.2008, as not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that bonafide of the petitioners is established from the fact that due to certain error in recording of address of the court premises, the man, who had to appear as a witness, could not reach the court in time and after verifying the address, when he reached the court C.R. No. 40 of 2009 [2] in the after-noon, the application was filed for recording his evidence. However, the same has also been rejected. It is further submitted that this is only one witness which is required to be produced and the interest of justice requires that evidence of the witness is recorded, though it is not disputed that number of opportunities had been taken by the petitioners earlier for leading their evidence. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considering that it would be in the interest of justice in case the lis pending before the court is decided on merits and not because of lack of evidence by either of the parties. No doubt, on the date when the evidence was to be recorded at the time when the case was called, no witness was present. However, the explanation given for his delayed presence in the court, i.e., in the after-noon cannot be simply brushed aside as it was on account of wrong recording of the address of the premises, where the court was being held. Considering the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate to set aside order dated 1.8.2008 and 29.8.2008 closing the evidence of the petitioners and grant one opportunity to the petitioners to complete their entire evidence on the date already fixed, i.e., 4.2.2009. However, the same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the respondent. It is further made clear that in case the petitioners fail to complete their evidence on the date fixed, no further opportunity shall be granted. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.1.2009 mk