Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Maggi Devi vs Prem Singh Shekhawat Anr on 12 February, 2014
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14344/2013 Smt. Maggi Devi-Petitioner Versus Prem Singh Shekhawat & Anr.-Respondents Date of Order-::-12th February 2014 Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi Mr. Anil Yadav for Mr. Ashvin Garg, for petitioner. Mr. R.P. Garg, for respondent. By the Court:-
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, challenging the order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the trial court), in Civil Suit No.603/2007, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner for reopening of her evidence under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC.
2. It is stated by the learned counsel Mr. Anil Yadav appearing for the learned counsel Mr. Ashvin Garg for the petitioner that the petitioner is an old lady, and she did not know about the procedure in the court, and therefore, her evidence was closed by the trial court. According to him, when the petitioner is required to examine the material witnesses, however the trial court has rejected the application. The learned counsel Mr. R.P. Garg for the respondent, however, submitted that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to lead the evidence but she did not produce any witness. According to him, now the evidence of the respondent-defendant has also started, and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order.
3. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that after the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 18.08.2011, the petitioner-plaintiff had not made any effort to reopen the evidence for about one year. Since the sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead the evidence, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner to reopen the evidence. The Court does not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, the petition deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.
(Bela M. Trivedi) J.
R.Vaishnav
31. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Ramesh Vaishnav Jr.P.A.