Civil Revision No.7343 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7343 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 30, 2011 Nirmal Singh .....Petitioner v. Bachan Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.28457-58 CII of 2011 Both the applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.7343 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 20.10.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which cross-examination of AW2 Bachan Singh was treated as nil. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the various zimni orders and impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though on 2-3 dates, respondent no.1 had come present for cross- examination and, however, date was sought by counsel for the petitioner before learned trial Court and, however, on some of the dates even the witness did not appear. It is further contended that due to negligence of Civil Revision No.7343 of 2011(O&M) -2- counsel for the petitioner, petitioner could not be made to suffer and that he be permitted to cross-examine respondent no.1- AW2-Bachan Singh, who is a material witness. It is also contended that in objections filed by petitioner- judgment debtor in execution petition filed by respondent-decree holder, issues were framed and that evidence of petitioner already concluded and, however, the case was continuing for the last so many dates for the evidence of respondent-decree holder. Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner to cross-examine respondent no.1-AW2 Bachan Singh 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 Executing Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner to cross-examine respondent no.1-AW2 Bachan Singh. However, petitioner is burdened with cost of `10,000/-, 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 Civil Revision No.7343 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 30.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge