Civil Revision No.5254 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5254 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 30, 2011 Surender Singh .....Petitioner v. Mr.Ashok Mittal and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.21041-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5254 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.8.2011 passed by learned trial Court 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. Perusal of various zimni orders, which have been reproduced by learned counsel for the petitioner in the petition, shows that plaintiff could not produce his evidence even after availing five opportunities and hence, evidence of plaintiff was closed. However on one or two dates, adjournment was sought by counsel for the defendants as well for cross- examination. Some witnesses were sought to be summoned by petitioner- Civil Revision No.5254 of 2011(O&M) -2- plaintiff, however, application was not filed as per order of learned trial Court within stipulated period after framing of issues. However, as the witnesses were allowed to be summoned by learned trial Court, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence at his own responsibility 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 his witnesses at his own responsibility by taking the summons dasti subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, 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 Civil Revision No.5254 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 30.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge