RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 19.04.2010, Annexure P-1 passed by learned trial Court vide which evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was ordered to be closed in civil suit No.225 of 2009. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a suit for declaration was filed by the present petitioner that he is entitled to pay, allowances, increments and connected benefits alongwith continuity in service on his compulsory retirement from service. Suit was contested by the respondents-defendants. Issues were framed on 01.11.2008 and the case was fixed for evidence of present petitioner-plaintiff for 05.02.2009. However, after availing several opportunities including three last opportunities, evidence could not be concluded by petitioner-plaintiff and hence, evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was closed by learned trial Court by passing impugned order dated 19.04.2010, which reads as under:- "No evidence of the plaintiff is present. Adjournment sought by learned counsel for the plaintiff is highly opposed. Heard. Keeping into consideration the fact that plaintiff has already availed 10 opportunities to conclude his evidence but has failed to do so. Last three opportunities given to the plaintiff were the last opportunities. Speedy trial is the fundamental right of the parties. Finding no justification to adjourn the case further for plaintiff evidence, the same is closed by order. To come up on 12.5.2010 for defendant evidence."
(2.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitionerplaintiff that evidence could not be concluded as record was not being produced by the official of respondent-department. IT is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that only petitioner-plaintiff remains to be examined and that affidavit of examination-in-chief of petitioner-plaintiff has already been prepared and that he does not want to examine any other witness. Though it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order as several opportunities were granted to petitioner-plaintiff to adduce his evidence however, in view of the fact that only petitionerplaintiff remains to be examined and prayer is only to examine petitionerplaintiff, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-plaintiff for the purpose in the interest of justice and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 19.04.2010 is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff to examine himself as a witness subject to payment of `10,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent.;