Civil Revision No.2386 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2386 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 7, 2011 Tej Kaur .....Petitioner v. Punjab Financial Corporation through its Managing Director .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.9674-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2386 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 7.2.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Abohar, vide which remaining evidence of the petitioner has been closed except recording of her statement. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is an old and ailing lady and she is bed ridden and this fact is also proved from the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It is further contended that though sufficient opportunities were availed by petitioner- plaintiff to adduce evidence, however, she could not conclude her evidence due to her illness. It is also contended that learned trial Court has granted her one opportunity to examine herself as witness and for that purpose the Civil Revision No.2386 of 2011(O&M) -2- case is fixed for 13.4.2011. It is further contended that petitioner intends to examine one more witness, at her own responsibility, who is an official of respondent-Corporation. Though in view of the fact that petitioner-plaintiff has already availed six opportunities to conclude her evidence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, however, taking into consideration the old age and serious illeness of petitioner-plaintiff, this Court is of the view that one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-plaintiff to conclude her evidence by examining one more witness at her own responsibility and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. In view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to examine one more witness at her own responsibility on the adjourned date. However, petitioner-plaintiff is burdened with cost of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 7.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge