IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4652 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.08.2009 Ashok Goel .....Petitioner versus Sita Ram Gupta and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed at the instance of the petitioner-defendant No.2 whose application under Order 26 Rules 1 & 4 CPC for recording his statement through the local Commissioner appears to have been dismissed and consequently his evidence has also been ordered to be closed by the trial Court vide its impugned order dated 11.8.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. C.R. No.4652 of 2009 (O&M) 2 It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner- defendant No.2 is bed ridden and is unable to even move and is not in a position to appear and depose before the Court. The medical evidence to this effect was statedly attached with the application, however, the Civil Court has not dealt with the same while passing the impugned order. There appears to be some substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed in the interest of justice; the impugned order dated 11.8.2009 is set-aside and the Civil Court is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for appointment of a local Commissioner to record his statement, provided that the Court is satisfied that the petitioner is bed ridden and unable to move to the Court. The fee of the local Commissioner shall be paid by the petitioner-defendant No.2. In that event, the petitioner shall also be liable to pay Rs.2200/- as expenses to the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff who shall visit to cross examine him on the date fixed by the trial Court. Dasti. 26-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE