Judgment 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 31.1.2006, whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed for the reason that the petitioner has not led his evidence inspite of opportunity granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has sought ejectment of tenant on the ground of bona-fide personal requirement. Earlier, the petitioner has produced two witnesses on 14.1.2003 but before their cross-examination could be recorded, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the petition on 8.5.2003. 3. The said application was decided only on 12.1.2006, when the case was fixed for evidence on 27.2.2006. Since the case was fixed for evidence after almost three years, the witnesses could not be produced for the purposes of cross-examination on 27.1.2006 and the case was adjourned to 31.1.2006. 4. On the said date, the evidence of the petitioner has been closed. The petitioner has produced witnesses in the year 2003 and it was on account of application for amendment that the evidence of the petitioner was not recorded. The learned trial Court has taken at least three years to decide an application for amendment of the petition but has not given sufficient time to the petitioner, after the decision of the said application, to produce the witnesses for the purposes of cross-examination. 5. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court on 31.1.2006 suffers from patent illegality causing manifest injustice to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to produce witnesses for the purposes of cross-examination on date fixed before the learned trial Court i. e.28.4.2006 and also examine any other witness, which may be required by the petitioner-landlord. The revision petition stands allowed in the above terms.