ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 05.11.2012 vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC was rejected. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that during the period the suit was pending, there was a strike which continued for a pretty long time. On 11.02.2011 also there was a strike and on the next date i.e. 18.03.2011, the court closed the evidence of the plaintiffs on the ground that ample opportunity has been granted to the petitioner-plaintiff for producing his witnesses. 4. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that as the matter was a civil suit, the counsel for the petitioner told the plaintiff that he will be informed when his appearance would be required, there being a strike on the previous date and as petitioner was not informed, the petitioner did not appear and did not produce his evidence on 18.03.2011. 5. It is contended that the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 29.01.2013 passed by this Court has produced affidavit of all his witnesses and was also eager to pay the cost of Rs. 4,000/- but the defendant not accept the cost as a result of which the evidence could not be taken on record. 6. It is contended by counsel for the defendant respondent that ample opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to produce his evidence and opportunity was also granted on payment of cost of Rs. 100/- but the plaintiff-petitioner failed to produce his evidence and the courts below has not committed any error in closing the evidence of the plaintiff. 7. It is also contended that even after closing of evidence the plaintiff-petitioner did not move the court within a reasonable time, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. I have considered the rival contentions and also perused the order-sheet pertaining to the civil suit. 9. The issues in this case were framed on 17.03.2009, thereafter out of 17 dates, the court did not function on majority of the dates due to strike of Advocates and absence of the Presiding Officer, the strike continued from May 2010 till February 2011 as per the order-sheet. 9. The issues in this case were framed on 17.03.2009, thereafter out of 17 dates, the court did not function on majority of the dates due to strike of Advocates and absence of the Presiding Officer, the strike continued from May 2010 till February 2011 as per the order-sheet. On the first date after the strike was called off continue i.e. 18.03.2011, the plaintiff was not present and the court passed the order and was closing the evidence of the plaintiff. 10. It is true that the plaintiff is required to produce his evidence without delay but the fact remains that in the present case, the case has been prolonged because of strike of Advocates, closing of evidence of the petitioner would result into grave injustice with the petitioner and the defendant can be compensated by cost. 11. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already filed affidavit in pursuance of directions of this court, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition, however, considering the fact that the matter has been delayed. I deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the plaintiff-petitioner to be paid to the defendant. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the plaintiff-petitioner to be paid to the defendant. Plaintiff is permitted to lead evidence only to the extent of affidavits submitted by him. The stay petition also stands disposed.