Civil Revision No.2661 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2661 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 25, 2011 Hira Lal .....Petitioner v. Babu Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.S.Bhadana, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 25.3.2011, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faridabad, Annexure P1, vide which evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff has been 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. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by petitioner-plaintiff against respondents-defendants, which was contested by respondents-defendants. Issues were framed. Sufficient opportunities were availed by petitioner- plaintiff to lead evidence, however, when no evidence was adduced despite last opportunity, impugned order was passed closing evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that petitioner was operated upon for cataract extraction of left eye on 15.3.2011, and was advised rest for two weeks and that is why he could not appear on the date fixed. However, no such medical certificate was produced before learned trial Court by petitioner. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any Civil Revision No.2661 of 2011 (O&M) -2- illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order. However, it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that only petitioner is to appear as his own witness and no other evidence is to be adduced. However, in view of the fact that petitioner was ill on that date when the impugned order was passed and was advised rest, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to examine himself as his own witness and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner to examine himself as a witness, subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 25.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge