C.R. No.7827 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7827 of 2010 (O &M) Date of Decision: 02.12.2010 Rajinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. B. S. Taunque, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.30868-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal. Plaintiff-Rajinder Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to impugn order dated 30.10.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hissar thereby declining request of the plaintiff- petitioner for deposit of diet money to summon some witnesses through the Court. Learned trial Court has observed in the impugned order that issues in the case were framed on 04.08.2010 and the plaintiff was directed to file process fee and diet money within 15 days, failing which no assistance of the Court will be provided. Since plaintiff petitioner moved application Annexure P-3 for deposit of diet money on 30.10.2010, the same was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the application was moved at belated stage i.e beyond the period stipulated in order dated C.R. No.7827 of 2010 (O & M) -2- 04.08.2010 when issues were framed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that order dated 04.08.2010 was not in the notice of the petitioner and, therefore, he could not deposit the diet money within the stipulated period of 15 days. This contention has to be rejected because copy of order dated 04.08.2010 as shown by counsel for the petitioner himself reveals that the said order was passed in the presence of counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that it is essential to summon the witnesses as mentioned in application Annexure P-3 and the application should not have been dismissed merely on the ground of delay. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. In my considered opinion, the application should not have been disallowed merely on the ground of delay, although the plaintiff- petitioner could be subjected to certain conditions for the said delay. The impugned order is patently illegal and unsustainable and suffers from jurisdictional error. The revision petition is being disposed of without notice to defendants/respondents as the impugned order was passed by the trial Court on the application of the plaintiff-petitioner without issuing notice to the defendants. Presence of the respondents is, therefore, not required in the instant revision petition. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is C.R. No.7827 of 2010 (O & M) -3- allowed and the trial Court is directed to permit the plaintiff-petitioner to deposit process fee and diet money for summoning the witnesses mentioned in the application Annexure P-3, subject to deposit of Rs.1000/- as costs precedent with District Legal Services Authority, Hissar and subject to such other suitable conditions if any as the trial Court may deem appropriate to impose. 02.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE