Single judge allowed Civil Revision to set aside an order closing evidence, directing the trial court to permit cross-examination of one witness subject to a cost condition, citing principles to avoid harassment.
Impugned order set aside; direction to trial court to grant opportunity for cross-examination of DW8 subject to deposit of Rs. 5,000/- as cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No.5292 of 2011(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.5292 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 1, 2011
Rajinder Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
Gurmel Singh
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Prashant Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Dera-Bassi, Annexure P1, vide which evidence of petitioner-defendant was ordered to be closed.
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 only one witness of petitioner-defendant, namely, Pankaj Garg-DW8 remains to be cross-examined by counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and that no other evidence is to be adduced by him.
Though sufficient opportunities have been granted by learned trial Court to petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence, however, in view of the fact that examination-in-chief of DW8- Pankaj Garg has already been recorded and that only his cross-examination is to be conducted, one
-2-
Civil Revision No.5292 of 2011(O&M)
opportunity can be granted to him for this purpose and the other party can be compensated by way of cost.
Hence, revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to produce DW8-Pankaj Garg for the purpose of crossexamination by the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff so that his statement be read 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 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 Coop 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
-3-
Civil Revision No.5292 of 2011(O&M)
the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitionerManagement before the Labour Court/Labour-cumConciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.”
However, liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revision petition revived if he feels dissatisfied with this order.
1.9.2011
meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to set aside the order closing the evidence of the petitioner-defendant.
Whether to grant the petitioner an opportunity for cross-examination of a witness.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Batala Machine Tools Workshop Coop v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, GurdaspurReferred¶23
Batala Machine Tools Workshop Coop v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002
Rajinder Singh
Gurmel Singh
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
