HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18034/2016
1. Gulabi Widow of Juglya (Since Deceased)
1/1. Santo D/o Shri Juglya W/o Prasadi, R/o Bamanwas, District
Sawai Madhopur. At present of Village Shekhpura, Post
Kachroda, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli.
1/2. Prem D/o Juglya, W/o Premraj, aged 50 years, R/o
Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur, At present Sanjay Colony,
Bariwa, Mohalla, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Defendant-Petitioners
Versus
1. Chhitrya S/o Shri Jailya (Since Deceased).
1/1. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Chhitrya.
1/2. Ram Charan S/o Shri Chhitrya.
1/3. Kesar Devi Widow of Chhitrya.
All Residents of Patti Kalan, Bamanwas, District Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.).
2. Kajod Mal S/o Shri Jailya, (Now Deceased).
---Plaintiff-Respondents
2/1. Amar Singh S/o Shri Kajodmal, R/o Patti Kalan, Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur.
2/2. Saraswati D/o Shri Kajodmal W/o Prakash Chand R/o Reti Ki Jhopadi, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli. 2/3. Kamlesh D/o Shri Kajodmal W/o Haricharan R/o Reti Ki Jhopadi, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli. 2/4. Sunita D/o Shri Kajodmal W/o Suresh Chand R/o Surangpura, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli. 2/5. Sadda Devi W/o Late Shri Kajodmal R/o Patti Kalan, Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur.
----Plaintiff-Respondents
3. Sub-Registrar Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur, Through Tehsildar, Bamanwas (Raj.).
----Defendant Performa Respondent
(Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 12:10:47 AM)
(2 of 5) [CW-18034/2016]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.D.K.Dixit, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Keshav Agarwal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
08/07/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-
defendants challenging the order dated 25.10.2016, whereby the Court below has closed evidence of the defendant-petitioners and also rejected an application filed by them for marking certain documents, as "Exhibit", produced by them i.e. judgment & decree dated 18.11.2000.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below has not considered the application filed by the petitioners in a proper manner and the petitioners specifically pleaded that the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2000, was filed by the defendant-petitioners by producing certified copies and as such the original copy was required to be summoned by the Court below from the Court concerned and thereafter the said document was required to be exhibited for the purpose of evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Court below while dealing with the said application has not assigned any single reason and as such this Court needs to interfere.
This Court finds that while assailing the order, relating to closer of evidence, the petitioners submitted that only two opportunities were granted to them for leading the evidence and evidence of both the defendants were recorded and only one (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 12:10:47 AM) (3 of 5) [CW-18034/2016] witness was required to be examined and his affidavit was already taken on record.
Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiff submitted that the Court below has considered the stage of the suit and since evidence of the defendants was already recorded and adequate opportunity was already granted, there was no further occasion to give more opportunity to the defendants.
Learned counsel further submitted that an endeavour was made by the petitioners to further delay the proceedings and as such the Court below in the interest of justice, has rightly come to the conclusion that no opportunity was required to be given.
Learned counsel submitted that the document, which was sought to be marked as "Exhibit" is a certified copy of the judgment & decree & was rightly rejected by the Court below and the same was not required to be marked as "Exhibit" as the defendants have already led their evidence and their will be nobody who will verify contents of the said documents.
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that the Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for producing an evidence by summoning the record and the Court has rightly rejected the documents to be marked as "Exhibit".
This Court finds that evidence of the defendants were already concluded and after conclusion of their evidence, there was no occasion to move any application and if the defendants wanted to produce certain documents & mark as "Exhibit" on the document/certified copy produced by them of the judgment & decree dated 18.11.2000, they could have made such prayer (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 12:10:47 AM) (4 of 5) [CW-18034/2016] before concluding the evidence but not after concluding their evidence.
This Court accordingly finds that no error has been committed by the Court below while disposing of the application filed by the petitioners for marking certain documents as Exhibit.
This Court, however, finds that one witness whose only evidence was recorded by way of affidavit before the Court below, as produced by the defendants, one more opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner, as the Court below had only granted time on two occasions earlier i.e. on 3 rd September, 2016 & 24th September, 2016 to produce their evidence.
This Court finds that on 24th September, 2016 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking an adjournment as witness was not able to come to the Court due to some unavoidable circumstances and on the next date i.e. on 25 th October, 2016, the Court below closed the evidence of the defendants.
This Court finds that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is required to be given to the petitioners-defendants to conclude their evidence.
This Court, accordingly finds that on the next date fixed by the Court below, one more opportunity will be given to the defendants to lead their evidence and cross examination of the said witness, will also be done by the respondents-plaintiffs.
This Court directs that the petitioners would pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents-plaintiffs on the next date of (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 12:10:47 AM) (5 of 5) [CW-18034/2016] hearing and only after payment of cost, their evidence will be recorded.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Monika/10 (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 12:10:47 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)