WPMS No.701 of 2005 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, the court finds that an application was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to look into the land in question. This application was rejected vide order dated 26.04.2005 and, by the said impugned order, the opportunity to lead evidence was also closed on the ground that the petitioner was delaying. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the court is of the opinion that when evidence is being led, it was not appropriate for the petitioner to move an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and that it clearly gives an indication that the petitioner was delaying the matter, which was not justified. To that extent, the order of the trial court does not suffer from any error, but, closing the evidence of the petitioner is not correct. A further opportunity to lead evidence ought to have been given to the petitioner by the court below. Accordingly, the order of the lower court closing the evidence of the plaintiff petitioner is unjustified and to that extent, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is partly allowed. The lower court will fix a date for completing the evidence of the petitioner. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 17.11.2011 LSR