Abdul Rajak Khan vs Urmila Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 5187 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        C.M.P. No. 314 of 2022
                              ------

       Abdul Rajak Khan              .... .... .... Petitioner
                          Versus
       Urmila Devi                   .... .... .... Opposite Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate

Oral Order 04/ Dated : 21.12.2022

Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.01.2019 and 06.02.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge-II, Senior Division, Ranchi in Original Suit No.204 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was closed and the subsequent petition to recall the order, has been rejected on 06.02.2020.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract and after appearance of the parties and submission of written statement, issue was framed on 25.03.2014 and on 20.04.2018, the petitioner was given five dates to conclude the evidence and finally on 31.01.2019, the plaintiff's evidence was closed. It is submitted that three witnesses could only be examined by the plaintiff. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party that after giving sufficient opportunity of four years, the evidence was closed and thereafter the case is now fixed for judgment.

3. Any party cannot have an unlimited draught on Courts time for adducing his evidence which will be contrary to the principles of speedy disposal of the suit. From the impugned order, it is manifest that sufficient opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to adduce his evidence and finally five dates were given to the plaintiff way back in 2019 which was also not availed.

4. Under the circumstance, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order while rejecting the petition for further time for plaintiff's evidence.

The civil miscellaneous petition accordingly stands dismissed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit