In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. C.R.No. 6188 of 2010(O&M) Decided on 24.9.2010. Om Parkash --Petitioner vs. Chanan Singh -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.P.Soi,Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.7.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, by which the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by order of the Court. It is submitted that on 24.7.2010, two PWs were examined, but rest of the evidence was not present, therefore, the learned Court below closed the evidence of the petitioner by observing that 11 effective opportunities have already been granted to the plaintiff. However, he submits that if one more opportunity is given to the petitioner, he would lead his entire evidence at his own responsibility . Although, I do not find any error in the order of the Court below, yet in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as costs, which shall be paid by the petitioner by way of Bank Draft to the defendant. This Civil Revision stands disposed of. 24.9.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. C.R.No. 3130 of 2010(O&M) Decided on 20.9.2010. Piare Lal --Petitioner vs. Latesh Kumar Duggal and another -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Deepak Aggarwal,Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) As per office report, notice issued to respondent No.1 has not been received back served or otherwise, whereas respondent No.2, has been served, but none has put in appearance on its behalf. Hence, respondent No.2. is proceeded against ex-parte. In this revision, petitioner has sought modification of the order dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure 4) by which learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, has ordered half of the amount of compensation to be deposited in the FDR and half has been ordered to be released. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is well settled that if the claimant is an adult, the amount of compensation granted in his favour cannot be ordered to be deposited in the FDR and has to be released forthwith. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of H.S.Ahammed Hussain Vs.Irfan Ahammed 2002 (3) RCR (Civil) 563. Moreover, the petitioner is an old man who is suffering from various ailments and is in need of medical treatment. In view thereof, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation deposited in the FDR in the name of the petitioner shall be released to him forthwith. Civil Revision stands disposed of. 24.9.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge