IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.231 of 2008 Date of decision: 26th November, 2009 Pawan Kumar and another … Petitioners Versus Union of India and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Mandeep S. Sachdev, Advocate for Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehtab Singh, Advocate for Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate for respondent No.4. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner prays that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority to seek review of the observation made “it is not disputed that the land in question is classified as B-3 owned by the Cantonment Board”. Learned counsel further submits that in the grounds of appeal, he had taken following specific stand: “7. That no proper opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant by the learned lower Court, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is worth to mention here that the appellant got recorded his statement in examination in chief and the case was adjourned for cross examination as counsel for the respondent was not present and there after the case was adjourned for several dates for the respondent. But on the date, when the counsel for the appellant was not feeling well and the appellant made a request for adjournment Civil Writ Petition No.231 of 2008 of case as his counsel was not present on that day, the learned lower Court inspite of adjournment of case, closed the evidence of the appellant by order, which is a hard step taken by the learned lower Court against the appellant. Moreover, the appellant had also moved an application for summoning the witnesses, but no order was passed on the said application for summoning the witnesses of the appellant and hence the appellant has condemned unheard and in case the appellant would have been given proper opportunity to lead evidence, the result of the case would have been different and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside in view of the facts submitted in this para.” Learned counsel submits that even this argument has not been dealt with by the appellate authority. A perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority shows that this argument was never raised. Counsel for the petitioner prays that on this score also, he be permitted to file review application. Counsel may file review application before the appellate authority. Counsel for the respondents submits that in case review application is filed within 15 days after receipt of certified copy of this order, they will not oppose the condonation of delay in filing review application. As prayed, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 26, 2009 rps 2