JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, District Kullu, on 30.06.2016 (for short ‘impugned order’) whereby the evidence of the petitioner came to be closed by order of the Court. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been granted as many as five opportunities. However, his explanation for not leading evidence on the date fixed was that his mother, who is more than 100 years old, was seriously ill and as such he stayed at Mandi to look after her and was, therefore, unable to appear before the Court. 3. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Court below would go to show that the version put-forth by the petitioner for not leading his evidence was not even doubted by the Court, yet his evidence was closed only on the ground that as many as five opportunities had already been granted to him to lead his evidence and despite this he had not led his evidence even though the order had been made subject to cost of Rs.1,000/-. 4. To say the least, the order passed by the learned trial Court is clearly unsustainable. The learned trial Court has erred in not taking into consideration that no one has the volition in the matter of falling ill. The time and place of illness cannot be predicted. Admittedly, the petitioner has sought adjournment only on the ground of unavoidable reason. The same ought to have been dealt with more compassion and the mere fact that the petitioner had already been granted five opportunities to lead his evidence could not have been the sole ground to reject the application, more particularly, when the Court itself did not disbelieve the ground of illness set up by the petitioner. 5. It has to be remembered that the Judiciary is respected not only on account of its powers to legalize justice on technical grounds, but because of it being capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 6. Having said so, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is accordingly set aside. 7. However, since the respondent has been dragged un-necessarily and otherwise in an avoidable litigation, he is required to be compensated by the petitioner. 6. Having said so, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is accordingly set aside. 7. However, since the respondent has been dragged un-necessarily and otherwise in an avoidable litigation, he is required to be compensated by the petitioner. Though, the petition has been allowed, however, the same shall be subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent on or before the next date of hearing. 8. The parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 21.11.2016 on which date the Court would fix a date for recording the entire evidence of the petitioner and shall also provide all necessary assistance for summoning the witnesses proposed to be examined. It is made clear that no further opportunity under any circumstance shall be provided to the petitioner for this purpose. 9. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.