JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is the plaintiff before the respondent no. 4 in Civil Suit No. 137/2012 (347/2006), wherein he prayed for specific performance of contract regarding agriculture land. He further submitted that due to pendency of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 233/2009 and the time taken in the writ petition, evidence could not be produced. Now, the petitioner is ready to pay cost to produce evidence and the learned respondent no. 4 wrongly closed the evidence of the plaintiff. 3. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into merits and demerits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 4 that one opportunity be given to the petitioner/plaintiff for producing evidence subject to payment of cost amounting to Rs. 5,000/- payable to the respondents/defendants.Writ Petition disposed of as above. *******