IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 8375 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.12.2010 M/s. Shree Anand Rice Mills .... Petitioner Versus Mohan Lal ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 3.12.2010 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Assandh whereby evidence of the defendant-petitioner was directed to be closed. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner states that on the date fixed, three witnesses were examined and time was sought from the Court to grant more time to produce other witnesses which was declined by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that on the date either fixed by this Court or by the learned Trial Court, remaining witnesses shall be produced for cross-examination before the learned Trial Court. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Prem Lata Vs. Ram Sarup reported in 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 423 placing reliance on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter C.R. No. 8375 of 2010 2 of Batala Machine Tools Workshop Coop. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur has held that matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission without any notice 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 proceedings. In the opinion of this Court, present matter can be disposed of at the admission stage without any notice to the respondent. This Court is of the further opinion that issuing notice to the respondent shall cause unnecessary delay in the disposal of the matter, hence, this Court proposes to decide this petition without notice to the respondent. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind, the golden rule that none should be given walk over and lis between the parties, as far as possible, should be decided at its own merit after affording sufficient opportunities to both the parties to place on record entire evidence and material, this Court direct that learned trial Court shall fix a date for the purpose of petitioner’s evidence. On the date so fixed, petitioner shall produce remaining witnesses before the learned trial Court for examination. If, for any reason, examination is not complete on the date so fixed, then learned Court shall be at liberty to hold day-to-day trial or to fix any future date, which is convenient to the Court. Petitioner shall pay cost of ` 5000/- to the respondent on or before the next date so fixed by the trial Court. If respondent feel aggrieved from this order, he shall be at liberty to move this Court for recalling of the C.R. No. 8375 of 2010 3 order. Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ALOK SINGH) 22.12.2010 JUDGE reena