IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 3314 of 2007. Date of Decision: 12th February, 2008... Rattan Lal . ...Petitioner through Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate Versus Dalero Devi & Ors. ...Respondent through Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate. 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 11th June, 2007 whereby application for appointment of a Local Commissioner to record the statement of Makhan Singh-Deed Writer, has been dismissed. Half heartedly, the petitioner has also impugned the order dated 15th June, 2007 whereby his evidence has been closed. The petitioner – defendant No.1 has propounded a Will allegedly executed by late Bihari Lal in favour of Smt. Karam Devi. Makhan Singh-Deed Writer allegedly scribed the said Will. After alleging that Makhan Singh-Deed Writer is paralytic and is unable to speak and/or attend the Court, the petitioner sought appointment of a Local Commissioner to examine and record his statement. The learned trial Court has dismissed the said application after observing that if the Deed Writer is unable to understand or speak, then how the Local Commissioner would be able to record his statement. The petitioner has now turned around and contends that the said Deed Writer can speak but can not walk. Civil Revision No. 3314 of 2007. ::-2-:: Meanwhile, the petitioner's evidence has been closed by the learned trial Court after holding that several opportunities have already been granted to him. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has also been heard. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order dated 11th June, 2007. No case to appoint a Local Commissioner to record the statement of Makhan Singh, Deed Writer, is made out. As regard to the subsequent order whereby the petitioner's evidence has been closed, I am of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to produce the said Makhan Singh and/or any other witness on his own responsibility. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this revision petition is allowed and while setting aside the order dated 15th June, 2007, learned Trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce Makhan Singh-Deed Writer and/or any other witness, at his own responsibility. Disposed of. February 12, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE