Om Parkash and Others vs Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd.

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been directed against the order dated 21.11.1997 passed by Shri Tarsem Mangla, Civil Judge (JD) Amritsar. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs under Order 18 Rules 17A CPC to bring on record certain documents mentioned in the impugned order which according to the petitioners were issued by the respondent department itself. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

Mr. Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that services of the plaintiffs alongwith certain other employees were retrenched by the respondent department on 4.5.1988. He further submits that the other employees whose services alongwith the petitioners were retrenched filed suit No. , 303/88-94 against the same orders of retrenchment and their suit is being tried by another learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar namely Sh. K.B. Raheja and an identical application submitted by those employees has been allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 25.10.1997 (copy Annexure P-4). He, therefore, contends that the petitioners should also be permitted to bring on record the documents mentioned in the impugned order.

Mr. Amit Sethi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that the suit is pending for the last about ten years and the stay is operating in favour of the petitioners. He, therefore, contends that the application under order 18 Rule 17-A CPC has been filed by the petitioner with a view to delay the case and no sufficient cause has been shown for filing this application at belated stage.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the petitioners will have to be permitted to bring on record the documents mentioned in the impugned order as these documents in fact have been issued by the respondent department itself and further same documents have already been permitted to be brought on record by way of additional evidence in the connected case which is being tried by another learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.1 1.1997 is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to bring on record the documents mentioned in the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners will not be permitted to examine any other witness except to bring on record these documents. The learned trial court is also directed to expedite the disposal of the suit after taking on record these documents. With this order, the petition stands disposed of.