Mahender Kumar vs Dwarka Prasad

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

C.M. No. 21553-CII of 2011

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Civil Revision No. 5421 of 2011

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 4.6.2008, Annexure P2, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Narnaul, vide which evidence of Petitioner-Defendant was closed by learned trial Court and order dated 9.8.2011, Annexure P1, vide which application for review of the said order was also dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that though three opportunities were granted by learned trial Court to the Petitioner-Defendant to lead evidence and however very short adjournments were given as the first date was 26.3.2008 and the evidence was closed on 4.6.2008. It is also contended that Petitioner-Defendant could not appear on the date fixed as he was ill on that date. It has also been contended that on the other hand Respondent-Plaintiff has taken about two years in closing his evidence. It is also contended that only one opportunity be given to Petitioner-Defendant as he wants to appear himself as his own witness and does not want to examine any other witnesses.

In view of these facts, one opportunity can be granted to the Petitioner-Defendant 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 is set aside. 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, which shall be a condition precedent.

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 Respondent to get this revision petition revived if he feels dissatisfied with this order.