Civil Revision No.5262 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-20.8.2010 M/s Afcoli Inc.G.T.Road, Panipat and another ...Petitioners Versus The Director, Employees State Insurance Corporations and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, relevant for the limited purpose to decide the core controversy involved in the present revision petition and emanating from the record, is that M/s Afcoli Inc.G.T.Road, Panipat and another petitioner- applicants filed an application under section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) for quashing the order passed by the Joint Director ESIC, Ambala City-respondent No.3, whereby the impugned amount in question was proposed to be recovered from them. 2. During the course of proceedings, when the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioners on 26.5.2010, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Panipat (the authority under the Act) closed their evidence by virtue of the impugned order (Annexure P1), the operative part of which is as under :- “Two PWs are present. PW4 was completely recorded. Cross-examination of PW Ramesh Sharma was deferred as the copy of affidavit was supplied today. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also stated that two PWs were also summoned but they did not appear despite service and they be summoned through bailable warrant. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that today it was the last opportunity for the applicant to conclude its entire evidence. In the present case, issues were framed on 12.1.2009 and the applicant was directed to file the list Civil Revision No.5262 of 2010 2 of witnesses, PF and DM etc. within fifteen days. List of the witnesses were not filed by the applicant and the applicant has already availed six opportunities including three last opportunities. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is no justification to issue the bailable warrants of the witnesses summoned by the applicant on 12.5.2010. Therefore, evidence of applicant is closed by Court orders except cross- examination of PW3 Ramesh Sharma. To come up on 27.7.2010 for cross-examination of deferred PW Ramesh Sharma. He is bound down for the date fixed. It is made clear that if PW Ramesh Sharma does not appear in the Court on the date fixed he shall be deemed to be discharged.” 3. The petitioners did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P1) and filed the present revision petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, the revision petition deserves to be accepted. 5. Ex facie, it is true that more than sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the petitioners to conclude their evidence, but still as it is not a matter of dispute that the witnesses, sought to be examined by them, were summoned, but they did not appear despite service, therefore, the petitioners were helpless in this respect. Once, the witnesses did not appear despite service, then it was the duty of the trial Court to secure their presence by coercive method and the petitioners cannot, in any manner, be blamed in this context. Therefore, I am of the view that the trial Court ought to have afforded another opportunity to the petitioners to produce the summoned witnesses, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties, particularly when the case stood deferred for cross-examination of PW3 Ramesh Sharma. I also hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondents in order to avoid their counsel fee and litigation expenses in the High Court and the delay in disposal of the main proceedings, particularly Civil Revision No.5262 of 2010 3 when they can well be compensated by adequate costs. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is hereby accepted and the impugned order (Annexure P1) is set aside to the extent that the petitioners are permitted to avail one opportunity to conclude their entire evidence subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to the respondents. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent for producing the indicated evidence. 7. Needless to say, the petitioners can take the legal assistance of the Court to secure the presence of the summoned witnesses. Thus, the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 8. Office is directed to send the copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for compliance. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 20.8.2010 Judge AS