IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R.No.76 of 2009 Date of order : 30.1.2009 Maruti Suzuki India Limited ......Petitioner(s) Versus R.S. Panwar ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(ORAL) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Maruti Suzuki India Limited under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside order dated 17.8.2007 (annexure P.4) passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurgaon and order dated 3.10.2008 (Annexure P.6) passed by the same Court, whereby for non-deposit of costs of Rs.100/-, the evidence of the petitioner-respondents was ordered to be closed under Section 35-B of the Civil Procedure Code and his application for review of the order was dismissed, respectively. Brief facts are that respondent-workman filed a suit for declaration that the domestic inquiry being held against him be declared as illegal and further prayed for an injunction that the same be ordered to be stayed. In the application for interim injunction filed by the respondent- plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, learned trial Court passed an interim injunction on 13.9.2001 for restraining the defendants from initiating further domestic inquiry. Thereafter, respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the petitioner- respondents for the alleged violation of the interim injunction. Reply to the same was filed by the petitioner denying the violation. On the pleadings, C.R.No.76 of 2009 #2# issues were framed and the parties proceeded to lead their evidence. After leading of evidence by the respondent-workman, when the case was listed on 17.8.2007 for leading of evidence by the petitioner-respondents, vide impugned order dated 17.8.2007, the evidence of the petitioner-respondents was closed on account of the fact that no witness was present and the previous conditional costs were not paid. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner-respondents filed an application dated 4.9.2007 (Annexure P.5) for review of order dated 17.8.2007 and the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 3.10.2008. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the case was listed on 17.8.2007, the costs of Rs.100/- had actually been deposited. He has placed reliance on the receipt dated 17.8.2008 (Annexure P.3). Learned counsel further refers to an affidavit dated 7.11.2008 (Annexure P.7) of Sh. M.P. Gupta, Advocate, who was the counsel for the petitioner-respondents Maruti Suzuki India Limited, the relevant paragraphs of which reads as under: “2. That case was initially fixed for evidence of petitioner on 14.3.2007 but evidence of petitioner was not available therefore the case was adjourned for 17.8.2007 on payment of cost of Rs.100/-. 3. That on 17.8.2007 amount of cost was deposited with the Legal Aid Service Authority, vide receipt No.26255 dated 17.8.2007 original copy was shown to the Ld. Trial Court and photocopy placed on record on the basis of which Reader of Court recorded Receipt No.26255 on the 'Cause List' maintained by him and case was adjourned in routine manner for 4.9.2007. 4. That the deponent was not aware of actual order recorded on file on 17.8.2007 as deponent was sure that no adverse order would have been passed when the cost has already been deposited and under this bonafide relief deponent did not inspect the file. Any how the evidence of petitioner was present on C.R.No.76 of 2009 #3# 4.9.2007. 5. That on 4.9.2007 application for review of order was submitted and all details for deposit of cost were mentioned in the application. 6. That at the time of argument in the case, a photocopy of the receipt for deposit of cost Rs.100/- was produced, and original shown to the Hon'ble Presiding Officer of the Court.” Learned counsel further submits that in view of the facts of this case, where costs had been actually paid, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned order is quashed and the petitioner is allowed to lead their evidence subject to payment of costs. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, in my opinion, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted. A perusal of receipt dated 17.8.2008 (Annexure P.3) issued by the District Legal Services Authority reveals that Rs.100/- has been paid as costs in the case of R.S.Panwar v. Maruti Udyog Ltd, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Gurgaon. Further, Sh. M.P. Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-respondents in para No.3 of his affidavit dated 7.11.2008 (Annexure P.7) has very clearly stated that the costs have been paid and receipt has been shown to the learned trial Court and that a photo copy of the same has been placed on record on the basis of which reader of the Court recorded Receipt No.26555 in the cause list maintained by him. Thus, this Court feels that interest of justice would be advanced if two effective opportunities are granted to the petitioner to lead its entire evidence, where the question of determination of violation of an injunction order is involved. In view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 17.8.2007 (annexure P.4) passed by Civil Judge(Jr. Division), C.R.No.76 of 2009 #3# Gurgaon and order dated 3.10.2008 (Annexure P.6) are set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant two effective opportunities to the petitioner to lead the evidence on the dates to be fixed by learned trial Court subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be paid to the respondent-workman by petitioner. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondent-workman since it would unnecessarily entail delay and expenses on his part and he is being compensated by way of costs. January 30, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE