Civil Revision No.3792 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3792 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: June 2, 2011 Nazar Singh .....Petitioner v. Major Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.G.S.Nahel, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.14859-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3792 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 23.5.2011, Annexure P2, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangrur, vide which evidence of the petitioner-defendant has been 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. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that respondent-plaintiff has also taken so many opportunities to conclude the evidence and though four opportunities were also availed by petitioner-defendant and however it is contended that only one opportunity be granted to him to conclude the evidence, as he wants to examine official witnesses, i.e., one from Police Station Civil Lines, Sangrur and the other Civil Revision No.3792 of 2011(O&M) -2- from Police Station Sadar Sangrur, at his own responsibility, who will prove the report mark `A', which was tendered in evidence. In view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner-defendant to examine both these witnesses 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 petitioner-defendant to examine both these witnesses at his own responsibility by taking dasti summons subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. 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 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 Civil Revision No.3792 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 2.6.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge