IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4107 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2011. Niranjan Kaur. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Charanjit Singh and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 ex parte. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 16.05.2011, Annexure P3 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dasuya vide which evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. CR No.4107 of 2011 It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is 85 years old widow and that though opportunities were availed by the petitioner to adduce evidence and however, she could not appear as her own witness due to old age and due to the fact that she used to remain ill and some times she used to go abroad. It is further contended that only one opportunity be granted to petitioner to produce herself as a witness. It has also been contended that even no evidence of respondents-defendants has been recorded so far after closing evidence of present petitioner-plaintiff. Though sufficient opportunities were granted to petitioner by learned trial Court to adduce evidence however, in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, one opportunity can be granted to present petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence and the other party can be compensated with cost. Hence, in view of aforementioned facts, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to appear herself as her own witness subject to payment of `10,000/- as cost which shall be a condition precedent. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to respondent no.1, because if he 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:- 2 CR No.4107 of 2011 “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 respondent to get this revision petition revived if he feels dissatisfied with this order. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 29, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 3