Santo Andanr vs Chhitrya Andors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4637 Raj/2

        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



                                           (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

(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

(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

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)