Civil Revision No.5164 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5164 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 26, 2011 Mrs.Indu Basra and others .....Petitioners v. Shri Sandeep and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S.Thiara, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.20755-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5164 of 2011 Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 30.5.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide which application for additional evidence filed by petitioners-plaintiffs was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for damages on account of death of Subash Basra during judicial custody while he was in jail as he was the only bread winner of the family. Case of petitioners-plaintiffs is that a notice Civil Revision No.5164 of 2011(O&M) -2- was issued to the respondents before filing of the suit and that copy of the said notice was also placed on record. It has also been contended that notice was sent through registered post and, however, receipt of the same has been denied by respondents-defendants. Hence, it is contended that the same is a material document to be produced and proved. Further contends that though it was negligence on the part of counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs for not getting the said notice proved at appropriate stage and, however, it is contended that parties cannot be made to suffer due to negligence on the part of the counsel for the petitioners. Hence, in view of these facts, as the document sought to be produced and proved is a material one for the purpose of decision of present suit and as copy of the same has already been placed on record, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioners-plaintiffs to produce and prove the said document at their own responsibility and 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 grant one opportunity to petitioners-plaintiffs to produce and prove the original notice, allegedly issued to respondents-defendants before filing of the suit at their own responsibility subject to payment of ` 10,000/- as cost. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it 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 Civil Revision No.5164 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 26.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge