C.R No. 1548 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 1548 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : March 17, 2010 Gurdev Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. Amrik Singh, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This petition has been filed against the order dated 23.1.2009 whereby the application for additional evidence filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner states that the two reasons which weighed with the learned trial Court in rejecting the application for additional evidence were; (1) no reason was disclosed why the said witnesses could not be examined at the relevant time; and (2) what was the relevance of these two witnesses ? He further states that in fact, at the relevant time, the witnesses could not be examined because the petitioner C.R No. 1548 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: suffered from the attack of paralysis. It is further stated that in these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw not only this revision petition but also the application for additional evidence with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. Counsel for the petitioner further states that being the plaintiff, the ground of delay would not really harm the respondent. He, however, states that any prejudice which may be caused to the respondent by permitting the withdrawal of this petition, as well as the application for additional evidence with the liberty as aforesaid can be compensated by costs. In my opinion, the request made by counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be meritless. In the circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this revision petition as well as the application for additional evidence with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. Let the costs be deposited in the trial Court by way of demand draft in favour of the respondent. As the main petition has since been dismissed as withdrawn, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 17, 2010. JUDGE `kk'