Civil Revision No.6445 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6445 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 2, 2011 Narotam Kumar .....Petitioner v. Raghunath Mandir and Dharamshala Arorvansh Sabha, Ratia and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.S.Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.25456-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6445 of 2011 Petitioner-defendant no.2 has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 23.9.2011, Annexure P9, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Ratia, vide which opportunity to lead evidence in support of the additional issue, which has been framed on the application of petitioner-defendant no.2, has been declined to him. 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. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though additional issue was framed by learned trial Court on the application of petitioner-defendant no.2 and, however, no opportunity was Civil Revision No.6445 of 2011(O&M) -2- given to him to adduce evidence on the additional issue and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. It has been contended that counter-claim has been claimed by petitioner-defendant in the written statement and that only one opportunity be granted to him to lead evidence at his own responsibility. Perusal of impugned order passed by learned trial Court shows that opportunity was not given to petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence by observing that he has already availed number of opportunities to lead evidence in support of the case including the counter claim and evidence was already led by him. However, in view of the fact that additional issues were framed regarding counter claim, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner- defendant no.2 to adduce evidence 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 set aside to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence at his own responsibility to prove additional issues, onus of which was upon him, 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 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 Civil Revision No.6445 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 2.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge