Civil Revision No.3513 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3513 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 26, 2011 Amarjit Kaur .....Petitioner v. Kashmir Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.13877-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3513 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 27.4.2011, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, 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 the file shows that petitioner-plaintiff has earlier availed sufficient opportunities and hence, after granting sufficient opportunities, evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was closed. However, only plea taken by petitioner-plaintiff is that her examination-in-chief was already recorded on 11.6.2008 and, however, her Civil Revision No.3513 of 2011(O&M) -2- cross-examination was deferred on the request of defendants as counsel for the defendants was not available. It is further contended that on the next date of hearing as well, petitioner appeared for her cross-examination and, however, she could not be cross-examined, as an application was filed on behalf of the defendants for de-exhibiting some documents. An application for setting aside ex parte proceedings against defendants no.5 and 6 was also filed. After said application was decided, written statement was filed by defendants no.5 and 6 and thereafter fresh issues were framed. It is further contended that thereafter some witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff, however, inadvertently, cross-examination on petitioner-plaintiff could not be conducted. Hence, it is contended that only one opportunity be granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to offer herself for the purpose of cross-examination by counsel for the respondents-defendants so that her statement may be read into evidence. Though sufficient opportunities were granted to petitioner- plaintiff to adduce evidence, however, in view of the fact that examination- in-chief of petitioner-plaintiff has already been recorded and that only she is to be cross-examined, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-plaintiff for this purpose 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 effective opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff to offer herself for the purpose of cross-examination subject to payment of `10,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. It has been stated that the next date fixed before learned trial Court is 21.7.2011 for evidence of defendants. Hence, petitioner is directed Civil Revision No.3513 of 2011(O&M) -3- to appear before learned trial Court on the date fixed for the purpose of her cross-examination. It is also made clear that learned trial Court may also record evidence of defendants on that date after completion of cross- examination of petitioner-plaintiff-Amarjit Kaur. 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 filed by petitioner-plaintiff. 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 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.” Civil Revision No.3513 of 2011(O&M) -4- However, liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order. Disposed of accordingly.` 26.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge