Ram Singh and others vs Jarnail Singh and others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

C.M.No.20958-CII of 2011

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

C.R.No.5231 of 2011

Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 11.8.2011, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam, vide which request of petitioners-plaintiffs to tender additional affidavits of examination-in-chief of PW2 Gurcharan Singh and PW3 Mohinder Singh was rejected.

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.

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that the case is still at the stage of evidence of petitioners-plaintiffs. Cross-examination of PW2 Gurcharan Singh and PW3 Mohinder Singh has not yet started.

Civil Revision No.5231 of 2011 (O&M) -2

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that both of them are to be further examined or their additional affidavits are to be filed on the point of proving sale deed executed by Gurcharan Singh in favour of Jarnail Singh, respondent no.1-defendant, which is a material document, to be proved in the case. Moreover after examination of these witnesses, additional issue was also framed at the instance of respondent no.3-defendant.

Hence, in view of these facts as cross-examination of these witnesses has not yet started, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to tender additional affidavits of examination-in-chief of PW2 Gurcharan Singh and PW3 Mohinder Singh subject to payment of Rs.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 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.