Civil Revision No.7150 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7150 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 28, 2011 Ran Singh .....Petitioner v. Mool Chand .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.27840-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.7150 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 25.7.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Mahendergarh, 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- plaintiff that though 3-4 opportunities were availed by petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence and, however, on most of the dates witnesses were examined. Further contends that only two witnesses remain to be examined, which are very material for the decision of present controversy as one of Civil Revision No.7150 of 2011(O&M) -2- them is scribe of the agreement in dispute and the other is attesting witness of the agreement in dispute, who are namely, Jiya Nand and Om Parkash. Further contends that only one opportunity be granted to petitioner-plaintiff to examine these witnesses at his own responsibility. In view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-plaintiff to examine these witnesses 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 the petitioner-plaintiff to examine these witnesses, namely, Jiya Nand and Om Parkash at his own responsibility. However, it is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner- plaintiff for this purpose and it will be his responsibility to examine these witnesses. However, petitioner 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 respondent is 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 Civil Revision No.7150 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 respondent to get this revision petition revived if he feels dissatisfied with this order. 28.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge