Civil Revision No.5293 of 2011(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.5293 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: September 1, 2011
Kamalpreet Singh
.....Petitioners
v.
Union of India and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Saurav Khurana, Advocate
for the petitioners.
......
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.21221-CII of 2011
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Civil Revision No.5293 of 2011
Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated
24.9.2010, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division),
Amritsar, vide which evidence of petitioners-plaintiffs has been closed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone
through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by
learned trial Court.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
one of the petitioners-plaintiffs, i.e., petitioner No.2-Ravi Pal Singh is to be
cross-examined and that no other evidence is to be adduced by petitioners-
plaintiffs except tendering of some documents, which are per se admissible
in evidence.
Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to
Civil Revision No.5293 of 2011(O&M) -2-
the petitioners-plaintiffs for this purpose and the other party can be
compensated by way of cost.
Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned
order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to
produce petitioner no.2-Ravi Pal Singh for the purpose of cross-examination
so that his statement be read in evidence and tender the documents, which
are per se admissible 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
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
Civil Revision No.5293 of 2011(O&M) -3-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.
1.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge