IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1414 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 03.03.2010 Suresh Kumar Petitioner Versus Satya Devi and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Karambir Singh Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) This revision petition has been filed against order dated 5.11.2009, vide which, right of the petitioner/ defendant, to lead evidence regarding oral Will, alleged to have been executed by Sunder Dass, his father, was closed by order. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that the Court below has closed evidence of the petitioner by wrongly treating the opportunity given on 5.11.2009, as the last opportunity. To say so, he has made reference to the earlier order passed on 21.10.2009, which reads thus:- “Reply to the application for appointment of handwriting Expert filed. An application for framing of additional issue on the will has also been moved. I have gone through the file and come to my notice that the defendants have pleaded in his written statement with regard to the execution of Civil Revision No.1414 of 2010(O&M) the Will in favour of defendants by deceased Sunder Dass, so the issue with regard to the Will is necessary for the proper decision of the case. So, the following additional issue is framed: 6-A Whether Sunder Dass deceased executed a legal and valid Will dated 27.5.1986 in favour of the defendants?OPD Now for evidence of the defendants on the Will only to come up on 5.11.2009.” It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff, in the suit, is still going on. It is apparent from the records that the parties are closely related to each other and dispute is regarding property left by the deceased Sunder Dass. It is clear from the records that on 21.10.2009, following additional issue was framed by the Court below on an application moved by the defendant:- “6-A Whether Sunder Dass deceased executed a legal and valid Will dated 27.5.1986 in favour of the defendants?OPD” The matter was adjourned to 5.11.2009 for adducing evidence regarding oral Will, put up by the petitioner-defendant. On the above said date, counsel for the petitioner was not available and had gone to Hoshiarpur, the proxy counsel appeared on his behalf, failed to state the correct facts and the evidence was closed without any justification. Counsel for the petitioner prays that if one effective opportunity is given to the petitioner, he will complete his evidence regarding Will put up by him. This Court feels that the prayer made appears to be somewhat justified. Evidence was closed by the impugned order by treating 5.11.2009 as the last opportunity /date to produce evidence by the petitioner –defendant, which otherwise is not coming out from the record. 2 Civil Revision No.1414 of 2010(O&M) In view of facts mentioned above, this revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the plaintiffs in the suit, on the next date of hearing. The suit is stated to be fixed on 10.3.2010. On the said date, on deposit of costs by the petitioner, the trial Court shall given a date to the petitioner to adduce his evidence. At this stage, notice is not being issued as the matter is very small and if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure, unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. This view finds support from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No.9563 of 2002, (Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co-op vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur), rendered on June 27, 2002, in which it was held 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 reason 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.” Liberty is left with the respondents –plaintiffs that if they feel aggrieved, they may move an application for recalling of this order. 03.03.2010 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3