Bakshish Kaur, J. - (1.) THE challenge in this revision petition is to the impugned order whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. Considering the background that this case has got a chequered history, this revision petition can be disposed of without issuing notice of motion to the other side.
(2.) IT is a fact that a civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff, now petitioner, in the year 1993. It was decreed ex parte on 21.11.1994. Thereafter, the decree was set aside on the appearance of the defendants. It is also a fact that the plaintiff was afforded sufficient opportunities to conclude his evidence as observed by the trial Court, but considering the fact that the suit is an old one and he had failed to conclude his evidence, the evidence was closed vide impugned order.
(3.) SINCE the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only the plaintiff is required to be examined and no other witness will be examined by him, the equity of justice, therefore, demands that the plaintiff, who had already undergone the turmoil of prolonged proceedings in the suit for a sufficient long time, should be given an opportunity to appear as his own witness.;