Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Preeti Agrawal vs Kamta Prasad Patel on 6 September, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 6th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 3265 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. PREETI AGRAWAL W/O SHRI SANJEEV
AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK WARD NO. 22
AWASHTHI COMPOUND NEAR KANVAR RAM
TALKIES KRISHN NAGAR SATNA DISTRICT
SATNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONER )
AND
1. KAMTA PRASAD PATEL S/O SHRI RAJA BHAIYA
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CULTIVATION GHURA PURVA AT PRESENT R/O
VIVEKANAND COLONY CHHATARPUR THANA
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT CHHATARPUR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI RAMAVTAR
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O KAMTA BAZAR, CHITRAKOOT,
TAHSIL MAJHGAWAN DISTRICT SATNA M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJENDRA GUPTA S/O SHRI KALICHARAN
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O VISATI BAZAR ATARRA, TAHSIL
NARAINI DISTRICT BANDA U.P. (UTTAR
PRADESH)
4. RAJENDRA SHARMA S/O SHRI RAM PRATAP
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CULTIVATION R/O BADAUSA
ROAD ATARRA, TAHSIL ATARRA, DISTRICT
BANDA U.P. (UTTAR PRADESH)
5. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, SATNA
SATNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. AISHWARYA SINGH- PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
I n this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P/6) passed in Civil Suit No.103-A/2015 by the 3rd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satna (M.P.), whereby the right of the defendant to lead evidence has been closed.
It is mentioned in the petition that it is not in dispute that the Court below has not granted them opportunity to lead evidence on various occasions but for some or the other reason, the defendant could not lead evidence on the date fixed. Since the right has been closed, the petitioner is suffering irreparable loss. In such a situation, he prays that only one opportunity may be granted to lead the evidence subject to payment of cost as may be imposed by this Court.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that in spite of repeated opportunities, the defendant did not produce the witnesses, therefore, right has been rightly closed. The petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the State.
Without entering into merits of the case and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that one opportunity to lead evidence deserves to be given to the petitioner/defendant. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P/6) is hereby set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to be paid to respondent No.1/plaintiff. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 19.09.2022. Thereafter, 3 the trial Court shall fix a date for allowing the petitioner to lead evidence.
I t is made clear that if the witnesses are not produced by the petitioner/defendant on the date fixed by the trial Court, the right to lead evidence would stand closed automatically and no further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Shanu Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.09.07 15:37:34 +05'30'