Civil Revision No.5987 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5987 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 28, 2011 Ranbir Singh .....Petitioner v. Amar Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.23826-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5987 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 10.8.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samrala, dismissing application of petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code'). 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. Briefly stated, present suit was filed by petitioner-plaintiff for possession of the land in dispute, duly described in the heading of the plaint. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants. Issues were framed. Case Civil Revision No.5987 of 2011(O&M) -2- was being adjourned from time to time for evidence of petitioner-plaintiff and however, evidence was not concluded. Rather an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of plaint was filed, which was dismissed by learned trial Court by observing that only proxy counsel appeared on 10.8.2011, when the impugned order was passed and the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff did not appear to argue the said application. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff could not appear on that date as there was death of a near relative of a colleague lawyer and most of the lawyers had gone there and that even counsel for the respondent was not present and only proxy counsel appeared for both the parties as is also clear from the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Hence, it is contended that only one opportunity be granted to petitioner-plaintiff to argue the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code and trial Court be directed to decide the same on merit. It is also contended that after decision of the application on merit, petitioner-plaintiff will conclude the evidence on one date at his own responsibility. In view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-plaintiff to argue the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code 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 the petitioner to argue the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code and decide the same on merit. However, petitioner is burdened with cost of `5,000/-, which shall be a condition precedent. Civil Revision No.5987 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 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. 28.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge