Civil Revision No.4979 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4979 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 18, 2011 Pappu and another .....Petitioners v. Mangat Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.J.V.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.19830-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4979 of 2011 Petitioners-defendants no.1 and 3 have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 8.6.2011, passed by learned trial Court vide which evidence of petitioners-defendants was ordered to be closed and order dated 28.7.2011, vide which application filed by petitioner no.1-defendant no.3 for examining a witness, namely, Krishan son of Shiv Lal was also dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that on some dates fixed for evidence of petitioners-defendants, evidence could not be recorded due to request made on behalf of the counsel Civil Revision No.4979 of 2011(O&M) -2- for the respondents-plaintiffs. It is further contended that though witnesses of petitioners-defendants were present and, however, they were not cross- examined on the request of counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs. Further contends that only one witness, namely, Krishan son of Shiv Lal is to be examined, who is a material witness and who was present outside the Court on 8.6.2011 also and, however, as he could not meet counsel for the petitioners-defendants and remained sitting outside the Court, hence, he could not be examined when the case was called for evidence. Further contends that however, on the same day, an application was moved by petitioner no.1-defendant no.3 to the Court and on that application, another separate order was passed by learned trial Court, which shows that on the the said date witness Krishan son of Shiv Lal was present and he was also bound down for next date of hearing, i.e., 26.7.2011. It is contended that thereafter petitioner no.1-defendant no.3 filed an application for allowing him to examine witness Krishan son of Shiv Lal, and however, the same was dismissed by learned trial Court. Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to petitioners-defendants to examine witness Krishan son of Shiv Lal at their own responsibility and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. In view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioners-defendants to examine witness Krishan son of Shiv Lal at their own responsibility subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite Civil Revision No.4979 of 2011(O&M) -3- party, because if the respondents are 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 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 respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order. 18.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge