IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 8383 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 22, 2010 Satish Kumar Kapoor. …Petitioner Versus Ved Parkash Kapoor and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby evidence of the defendant-petitioner was directed to be closed. C.R.No. 8383 of 2010 Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner states that on the date fixed, witnesses could not be produced because of some personal difficulties of the witnesses, hence adjournment was sought, which was wrongly declined by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on the date either fixed by this Court or by the learned Trial Court, all the witnesses shall be produced for cross-examination before the learned Trial Court. He further states that learned Trial Court be directed to fix the date beyond 23.12.2010. 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 of Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op. 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 respondents shall cause unnecessary delay in the disposal of the matter pending before the learned Trial 2 C.R.No. 8383 of 2010 Court, hence, this Court proposes to decide this petition without notice to the respondents. 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 defendant-petitioner’ evidence. On the date so fixed, defendant-petitioner shall produce all the witnesses before the learned Trial Court for examination. If, for any reason, examination is not complete on the date so fixed, then learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to hold day-to-day trial or fix any future date, which is convenient to the Court. However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the defendant- petitioner. Petitioner shall pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the respondents herein before the next date so fixed by the learned Trial Court. If respondents feel aggrieved from this order, they shall be at liberty to move this Court for recalling of the order. Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. December 22, 2010 (Alok Singh) vkd Judge 3 C.R.No. 8383 of 2010 4