Civil Revision No.5262 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5262 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 30, 2011 Kamaljit Singh .....Petitioner v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside/quashing of order dated 1.10.2010, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which evidence of petitioner-plaintiff has been closed by learned trial Court and for setting aside order dated 27.5.2011 vide which application field by petitioner-plaintiff for review of the said order was also dismissed by learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner that he has already tendered his affidavit of examination-in-chief and that he was also partly cross-examined and, however, his cross-examination could not be completed. It is also contended that on some dates of hearing though he was present, however, the date was sought for his cross-examination by counsel for the other party. It is also stated that he is not to examine any Civil Revision No.5262 of 2011(O&M) -2- other witness except himself and that he be only granted one opportunity to produce himself for the purpose of cross-examination by the respondents. Hence, in view of these facts, though sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner for this purpose, however, in view of the fact that his examination-in-chief was already conducted and that part cross- examination was also done, one opportunity can be granted to him to produce himself so that his cross-examination be completed and his statement be read in evidence. Hence, the revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to produce himself for the purpose of cross-examination by counsel for the respondents-defendants so that his statement be read in evidence 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 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 Civil Revision No.5262 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 30.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge