C.R.No.5332 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 16.09.2009 C.R.No.5332 of 2009 Ajay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present petition is directed against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 24.8.2009, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for additional evidence in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was dismissed. The petitioner wishes to examine one Dr. B.B.Sharma, Valuer, who has evaluated the standing trees on the land acquired for the purpose of determining the compensation thereon. The trial Court found that earlier the evidence of the petitioner was closed by an order dated 17.9.2007 and the said order was not challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in fact on 17.9.2007, Dr. B.B.Sharma was not available as he has gone abroad. The three references are pending before the learned reference Court and in the 3rd reference, Dr. Sharma has been examined as a witness on 7.4.2008, though in the present case, the evidence of the petitioner was closed earlier. An application for additional evidence was filed so as to permit the petitioner to produce Dr. Sharma as a witness, which has been C.R.No.5332 of 2009 2 declined vide order aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the reference is fixed tomorrow i.e. 17.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, he shall produce the witness, who could not be examined for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and for the delay in leading his evidence, he shall compensate the respondents as well. Though the evidence of the petitioner was closed vide order dated 17.9.2007 and that the said order was not challenged by the petitioner. But in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to produce Dr. Sharma, as a witness on a date to be fixed by the learned trial Court, which shall not be less than 7 days and more than 3 weeks, on payment of Rs.2000/- as costs. The petitioner shall pay the costs on the date fixed i.e. 17.09.2009. On payment of such costs, the learned trial Court shall fix a suitable day for recording of the evidence of Dr. Sharma. If the petitioner fails to deposit the costs, the evidence of the petitioner shall be deemed to be closed. With the said directions, the revision petition is disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Special Secretary. 16.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE