Civil Revision No.6958 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6958 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 15, 2011 Gurcharan Singh .....Petitioner v. Sukhdev Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.27133 of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6958 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 1.9.2011, (Annexure P6) and order dated 11.10.2010, (Annexure P3) passed by learned trial Court vide which request of petitioner-defendant for permission to tender his affidavit regarding his examination-in-chief was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that though affidavit regarding examination-in-chief of petitioner-defendant was ready on the previous date of hearing, i.e., 8.10.2010 and, however, the same could not be tendered as Lawyers of Bar Civil Revision No.6958 of 2011(O&M) -2- Association, Jagraon, were on strike on that day. Further contends that on the next date of hearing, i.e., 11.10.2010 though witness of present petitioner-defendant, i.e., DW1 was allowed to be cross-examined by learned trial Court and, however, he was not allowed to tender his affidavit in examination-in-chief and that his application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') in this regard was also dismissed vide subsequent order Annexure P6. Perusal of various zimni orders passed by learned trial Court shows that the present petitioner-defendant was negligent in leading evidence as affidavit of his examination-in-chief was not filed even after taking 2/3 dates. However, as the affidavit is already ready, which was attached with application filed under Section 151 of the Code and he is only to be cross-examined by counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner for this purpose in the interest of justice and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to permit petitioner-defendant to tender affidavit of his examination-in-chief and he be also permitted to be cross-examined by the other party so that the same be read in evidence. However, petitioner-defendant is burdened with cost of `10,000/-, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 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 Civil Revision No.6958 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 15.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge