Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Chidiya And Ors vs The Learned Civil Judge And Ors on 16 March, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16984/2010 SMT. CHIDIYA Vs. THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), KISHANGARH BAS, ALWAR & ORS. DATE: 16.03.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Rahul Tiwari, for the petitioners.
**** Heard the learned counsel for petitioners.
2. A notice to show cause was given to respondents, but neither respondents nor anyone is present on their behalf despite service of notice.
3. The plaintiffs/petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 01.12.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kishangarh Bas, Alwar, whereby application filed by petitioners for re-opening of their evidence has been dismissed.
4. Learned trial Court while dismissing the application, has observed that plaintiffs were granted three opportunities to lead evidence, thereafter again an opportunity was granted to lead evidence on payment of cost, total 6 opportunities were granted to plaintiffs to lead their evidence and only thereafter their evidence was closed and now the case is fixed for final arguments, therefore, there is no justification for allowing the application.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that plaintiffs had gone to earn their livelihood, therefore, they could not produce their evidence. Plaintiffs are poor persons, they filed a suit for injunction in respect of land, which was allotted to them. In case an opportunity is not granted to them to lead their evidence, then their suit is likely to be dismissed and they will suffer irreparable loss. He further submitted that so far as delay in proceedings is concerned, the same can be compensated by way of cost.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners in the light of reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the application of petitioners.
7. The present suit was instituted in the year 2001, therefore, it is an old matter. In these circumstances, I find that the learned trial Court was absolutely right in dismissing the application of plaintiffs. However, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice will meet, if one more opportunity, as a last opportunity, is granted to plaintiffs to lead evidence, at their own, on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-
8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the plaintiffs are permitted to adduce their evidence on 1st and 2nd April, 2011, on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand), which will be deposited/paid before producing their evidence.
9. It is made clear that in case payment of cost is not paid before producing evidence or witnesses are not examined on the above dates, then the order passed by the trial Court will remain as it is and no further opportunity in this regard will be granted to plaintiffs.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.
/KKC/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO.9387/2010 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16984/2010 SMT. CHIDIYA Vs. THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), KISHANGARH BAS, ALWAR & ORS.
DATE: 16.03.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Rahul Tiwari, for the petitioners.
**** Since the writ petition has been allowed, this stay application also stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.
/KKC