JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J.: - The plaintiff has filed the present revision for challenging the order passed by the trial Court on 16.10.2012 whereby his evidence was closed by order. 2. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that despite last and final opportunity having been given to the petitioner, no PW was present. Instead, request was made by counsel representing the petitioner for an adjournment. However, considering the facts that the issues were framed on 14.6.2007 and the petitioner had availed several opportunities to conclude the evidence but failed to do the same, despite last and final opportunity and that the case was one of the oldest identified case towards Samadhan/Action plan, the trial Court observed that no ground was made out to grant any further adjournment to the petitioner for examining his evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already examined his entire evidence. Only he himself has to appear before the trial Court for the purposes of his remaining cross-examination. For the first time he had stepped into the witness box as PW1 on 31.1.2009 and tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A by way of examination-in-chief. His cross-examination was deferred on the request made by counsel for the defendants that he was busy in another Court. Thereafter, he was partly cross-examined on 17.9.2011. As the cross-examination could not be completed, it was deferred on the request made by counsel for the defendants. Thereafter, the petitioner was recalled for cross-examination for 30.5.2012. He was further cross-examined in detail but still it could not be completed and was deferred for want of bank record. On the next date, i.e. 20.7.2012, learned Presiding Officer was on leave and, accordingly, the case was adjourned to 26.8.2012. 26.8.2012 happened to be a holiday, being Sunday, and resultantly, the case was adjourned on 27.8.2012 to 19.9.2012. On 19.9.2012, PW Ashok Kumar, Manager of the Punjab and Sind Bank was present. As he had not brought the record, the proceedings were adjourned to 4.10.2012. On 4.10.2012, no PW was present and the case was adjourned to 16.10.2012, when the impugned order was passed. It is further submitted that grand-mother of the petitioner had died on 20.8.2012 at his native place in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As he had not brought the record, the proceedings were adjourned to 4.10.2012. On 4.10.2012, no PW was present and the case was adjourned to 16.10.2012, when the impugned order was passed. It is further submitted that grand-mother of the petitioner had died on 20.8.2012 at his native place in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner had to go there for performing her last rites and for that reason he could not appear before the trial Court on 16.10.2012 for the purposes of his remaining cross-examination. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for granting one more opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court for the purposes of his remaining cross-examination. 4. From the above resume of facts, it is apparent that though the petitioner had appeared as PW1 and tendered the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief on 31.1.2009 yet his cross-examination had to be deferred on the request made by counsel for the defendants. He was, thereafter, partly cross-examined by counsel for the defendants on two occasions but the same could not be completed for one reason or the other. Finally, when the petitioner was required to remain present in the Court on 16.10.2012 for the purposes of his remaining cross-examination, he failed to do so as, according to him, he had to attend the last rites of his grand-mother, who had died just two months earlier. At the same time, it may be noticed that the petitioner had failed to conclude his evidence despite availing last and final opportunity. 5. Be that as it may, the Court feels that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to put in appearance before the trial Court for the purposes of his remaining cross-examination by counsel for the defendants. For the lapse on the part of the petitioner in not putting in appearance before the trial Court on 16.10.2012 for the purposes of his remaining cross-examination, the defendants can be suitably compensated. 6. Resultantly, the revision is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to put in appearance for the purposes of his remaining cross-examination. This shall, however, be subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the defendants. ---------0.B.S.0------------