Civil Revision No.7335 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7335 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2011 Pardeep Kumar .....Petitioner v. Hari Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 9.9.2011, Annexure P10, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, vide which evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was closed. 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. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though sufficient opportunities were availed by petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence and affidavit of examination-in-chief of petitioner-plaintiff was already tendered and, however, petitioner-plaintiff requests only one opportunity to tender himself for the purpose of cross-examination so that his deposition be read in evidence. In view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to produce himself for the purpose of cross-examination Civil Revision No.7335 of 2011(O&M) -2- and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to appear for the purpose of cross- examination by counsel for the respondents-defendants so that his statement be read in evidence. However, petitioner-plaintiff is burdened with cost of `5,000/- 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 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 Civil Revision No.7335 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 29.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge