Civil Revision No.6975 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6975 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 22, 2011 Chander Singh .....Petitioner v. Mahinder Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.27183-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6975 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 8.6.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, vide which evidence of petitioner-defendant was closed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the various zimni orders passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has to examine only one more witness, namely, A.K.Mor, Architect, and that only one opportunity be granted to petitioner to examine him at his own responsibility as earlier he was not in the knowledge of his correct address and now he has come to know his correct address as he has Civil Revision No.6975 of 2011(O&M) -2- already shifted to Sirsa. In view of these facts though sufficient opportunities were granted by learned trial Court to petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence, however, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to examine this witness 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 to examine Architect A.K.Mor as a witness at his own responsibility subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. However it is made clear that under no circumstances no further opportunity would be granted to petitioner- defendant for this purpose by learned trial Court. Disposed of accordingly. 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. 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 Civil Revision No.6975 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 22.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge