IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 3155 of 2007. Date of Decision: 14th January, 2008... Master Balwinder Singh ....Petitioner through Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate Versus Gurvinder Singh & Ors. ...Respondent through Brig. B.S.Tounque, Advocate. For respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th February, 2007 whereby the petitioner's evidence has been ordered to be closed. The petitioner, who is a minor, aged about 5 years, has filed a claim petition through his natural guardian and mother. It appears that the case was fixed on 6.2.2007 for the petitioner's evidence. However, no witness having been examined on that day, the Tribunal passed the impugned order and closed his evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the doctor, who is yet to depose, is a material witness and the petitioner had already deposited the diet money and process fee etc. to summon him. However, due to non-appearance of the said doctor, the petitioner ought not to be made to suffer. There appears to be some substance in the petitioner's contention. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.2.2007 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to afford not more than two opportunities to the petitioner to lead his remaining evidence. Disposed of. January 14, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE