Civil Revision No. 5936 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5936 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 26th,2011 Rai Singh Patanga .... Petitioner Versus Municipal Council, Khanna and others .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by the plaintiff under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.8.2001 (Annexure P1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which the evidence of the plaintiff has been ordered to be closed. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of a building and that notice dated 11.11.2004 issued to him under the provisions of section 172-A of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 is illegal, null and void and is not binding on him. A prayer for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the suit property has also been made. Issues in this case were framed on 12.2.2005 and thereafter, the plaintiff had been leading his evidence. As there was no Civil Revision No. 5936 of 2011 2 .. evidence of the plaintiff present on 10.8.2011, which was last opportunity for the plaintiff to conclude his evidence, the evidence of the petitioner was closed finding no justification to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiff to lead his evidence. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the very outset that the petitioner is 86 years old, a freedom fighter, who is suffering from various ailments. According to him, his examination in chief by way of affidavit, Exhibit PW1, is there on the record and he could not appear for his cross-examination on the date fixed as he was busy in some seminar of freedom fighters. He has submitted that looking to his age, learned trial court was required to give one more opportunity to him to appear for cross examination. I have perused the order sheet given by the petitioner in his revision petition. After framing of the issues on 12.2.2005, a number of adjournments have been given in the case. However, all of them are not for the evidence of the plaintiff. On various occasions, witnesses had come but they could not bring record. They being official witnesses, the plaintiff had no power over them. All this circumstances taken with the fact that the petitioner is 86 years old freedom fighter, he deserved one more opportunity for appearing in the witness box for cross examination. In these circumstances, the revision petition is accepted and one opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to appear in the Civil Revision No. 5936 of 2011 3 .. witness box for cross examination. However, for the delay occasioned by non appearance of the petitioner in the witness box on the date when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner is burdened with Rs.5,000/- as costs payable to the other side which would be sufficient to compensate the other side. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 26th , 2011 som