Civil Revision No.7711 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7711 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 14, 2011 Sohrab Khan .....Petitioner v. Akhtar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Hooda, 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 16.8.2011, Annexure P1, vide which petitioner-plaintiff was granted opportunity to produce PW-2 only for the purpose of cross -examination, whose affidavit of statement was already there on the record. 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 another witness, namely, Juhar Khan, PW, who is attesting witness of sale deed in question is a necessary witness to be examined. Further contends that though his affidavit was got prepared on 14.2.2011, the date already fixed and, however, the same could not be tendered in evidence as he had come late. Further contends that petitioner only wants to examine this witness and for that purpose one opportunity be granted. Civil Revision No.7711 of 2011(O&M) -2- Perusal of file shows that though sufficient opportunities were granted to petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence by learned trial Court, however, as the evidence of petitioner-plaintiff has not yet been closed and as the case has been adjourned for cross-examination of PW2 by learned trial Court, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner to examine PW -Juhar Khan as well, who is a material witness and 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 permit petitioner-plaintiff to examine PW Juhar Khan at his own responsibility on the date already fixed. However, it is made clear that no further adjournment for this purpose shall be granted. 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 the respondent-workman before the instant order has been Civil Revision No.7711 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 14.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge