ORDER Rajesh Tandon J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.9.2003 passed by the respondent no.1. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that petitioner has filed a suit No. 98 of 1992 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Pauri Garhwal. Notices were served on the respondent and he filed written statement. The Civil Judge thereafter fixed date for filing the list for witnesses. The petitioner has moved an application before the Civil Judge (SD) for seeking permission to file the list of the witnesses but the same was rejected by the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 4.9.2003. The petitioner has alleged that he is a heart patient and he was hospitalised for treatment due to which he was unable to submit list of witnesses and has moved application. 3. The petitioner has referred to Order XVIII Rule 2 C.P.C. which reads as under: 2. Statement and production of evidence- (1) On the day fixed for the hearing of the suit or on any other day to which the hearing is adjourned the party having the right to begin shall state his case and produce his evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. 4. The petitioner has stated that the order passed by the respondent no.1 is bad in the eye of law. He cannot refuse permission if the reason disclosed in the application are sufficient enabling the party to file list of the witnesses. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case Kewal Krishan vs. Harnek Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1440. In that case the Apex Court has held as under : "In our view, end of justice requires that the appellant be given one more opportunity of leading evidence. Accordingly the order closing the evidence of the appellant is set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the appellant to lead' his evidence." 6. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case the interest of justice cannot be sacrificed merely on the question of delay in presenting the application for examination of witnesses. Accordingly the order closing the evidence of the appellant is set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the appellant to lead' his evidence." 6. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case the interest of justice cannot be sacrificed merely on the question of delay in presenting the application for examination of witnesses. The order passed by the Civil Judge, (SD) Pauri Garhwal, therefore, cannot be allowed to come in the way of the dispensation of justice. 7. The order passed by the Civil Judge (SD) Pauri Garhwal closing the evidence of the petitioner is quashed. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to lead his evidence. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.