Alia Mahatain @ Alia Mathain @ ... vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4721 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       C.M.P. No. 659 of 2022
                             ------

Alia Mahatain @ Alia Mathain @ Aliya Mahto .... .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Jharkhand

2. Gour Paramanik

3. Raj Kumar Paramanik

4. Chiranjit Paramanik .... .... .... Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Oral Order 03/ Dated :25.11.2022

It is submitted that all the defects have been removed.

2. Instant petition has been field for setting aside the order dated 11.08.2022 passed in Title Suit No.87 of 2007 by Civil Judge, Junior Division I, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has dismissed the petition dated 30.06.2022 to recall the earlier order by which the evidence of the defendant was closed.

3. The petitioner is defendant in Title Suit No.87 of 2007 which has been filed by opposite party Nos.2-4 for declaration of title over suit land detailed in the plaint. The defendant is petitioner whereas in the learned Court below the power of attorney holder, had moved the petition for recall the earlier order.

4. The prayer for extension of time for evidence on behalf of the defendant is made on the ground that the case was fixed for defence evidence since 10.07.2019 to 31.05.2022 and during intervening Covid pandemic, the witnesses could not be examined on behalf of defence. Since this petitioner was bedridden therefore, the power of attorney holder had moved the Court below for conducting the matter.

5. Learned counsel on behalf of State submits that from the impugned order itself, it will be evident that sufficient reason has been assigned for closing the defence evidence. The case was posted for defence evidence for about three years and during this period not a single witness was examined on behalf of petitioner/defendant. After the evidence of the defendant was closed, the case was fixed for argument. After the argument of the plaintiff, the case was fixed for judgment after giving sufficient opportunity to the defendant, when this petition has been filed for recall of the earlier order for evidence.

6. The laxity on the part of the petitioner is writ large in the manner in which the case has been conducted on behalf of the defendant in the Court below. It has been admitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that even the list of witnesses has not been filed as required under Order VI Rule 1 of the C.P.C. However, it appears that on 26.02.2020 the examination-in-chief on affidavit had been filed of D.W. 1-Dilip Rajwar and thereafter due to corona virus he could not be examined. It is contended that the about two years of the period of Defence Evidence was consumed due to dysfunctional state caused by covid pandemic when during the online hearing of the matter the evidence was not being recorded. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the judgment has not so far been pronounced in this case.

Considering these factors, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to examine all his witnesses within one month from the receipt of this order by the learned Court below.

Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed at a cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the petitioner/defendant to the plaintiff.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit