Anup Singh vs Tajinder Singh and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

C.M. Nos. 18888-89-CII of 2011

Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P5.

The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Civil Revision No. 4762 of 2011

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 29.4.2011, Annexure P3,

vide which evidence of Petitioner-Defendant was closed by learned trial Court.

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.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the case was fixed for evidence of Petitioner-Defendant on 16.2.2011 for the

first time and though four opportunities were avail`ed by Petitioner Civil Revision No. 4762 of 2011(O&M) -2 Defendant, however, his evidence

was closed on 29.4.2011, i.e., within a period of about 2-1/2 months, whereas Respondent-Plaintiff had availed so many opportunities and though

suit was filed in the year 2004 and however the evidence of Respondent-Plaintiff was closed vide order dated 4.2.2011. It has been contended

that suit was also dismissed in default and later on it was restored. It is also contended that evidence could not be adduced by Petitioner-

Defendant as his counsel was out of station. It is also contended that Petitioner did not file any list of witnesses as Petitioner alone is to appear as

his own witness and to tender some documents in evidence and does not want to examine any other witnesses.

Hence, in view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to the Petitioner to appear as his own witness and the other party can be

compensated by way of cost.

Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order passed by learned trial Court is modified to the extent that learned trial Court

is directed to grant one opportunity to Petitioner-Defendant to appear as his own witness subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/-as cost.

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

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.