Rajasthan High Court
Shri Jawarilal Son Of Shri ... vs Shri Mahesh Dutt Son Of Shri Kalyan ... on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1534/2021
1. Shri Jawarilal Son Of Shri Narayanji Teli,
2. Shri Devendra Son Of Shri Jawarilal,
Resident of Krishna Oil Ghani, Near Shani Maharaj
Temple, Bus Stand, Gram Kharwa, Tehsil Masuda Distt.
Ajmer (Raj).
----Petitioners/Defendants
Versus
1. Shri Mahesh Dutt Son Of Shri Kalyan Dutt Sharma, Aged
About 68 Years, Resident Of Kharwa Tehsil Masuda, Distt.
Ajmer (Raj).
2. Shri Suresh Dutt Son Of Shri Kalyan Dutt Sharma, Aged
About 66 Years, Resident Of Kharwa Tehsil Masuda, Distt.
Ajmer (Raj) Right Now Resident Of Saket Nagar, Beawar
Distt. Ajmer (Raj).
----Respondents/Plaintiffs
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
04/05/2022
For the reasons stated in the application (1/2022) for early
listing, the same is allowed.
On the joint request of the learned counsels for the
respective parties, the writ petition was heard on its merit today
itself.
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by
the learned Additional Civil Judge No.2, Beawar, Ajmer in Civil Suit
(2 of 3) [CW-1534/2021]
No.21/2017 (115/2015) whereby evidence of the petitioners-
defendants has been closed.
The facts in brief are that in a suit filed by the respondents-
plaintiffs for dispossession, recovery of rent and mesne profit,
evidence of the defendants was closed by the learned trial Court
vide order dated 30.01.2020 after their failure to produce the
evidence despite several opportunities.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, drawing attention of this
Court towards the application dated 30.01.2020 filed by them,
submitted that they have submitted affidavits of their witnesses
but, prayed for time to produce the witnesses for cross-
examination as "Aunty (Mami)" of the defendant no.2 has expired
on 28.01.2020. He submits that in view of involvement of their
substantial rights in the immovable property and in the interest of
justice, they may be afforded one opportunity to produce their
witnesses for cross-examination.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposing the prayer
submitted that when the defendants failed to produce their
witnesses despite several opportunities, learned trial Court has
rightly closed the evidence vide order dated 30.01.2020. He, in
support of his submissions, relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs.
Gopal and Ors.: (2021) 4 RCR (Civil) 416.
Heard. Considered.
Indisputably, alongwith their application dated 30.01.2020,
the defendants have submitted affidavits of their witnesses and
prayed for time to produce them for cross-examination as "Mami"
of the defendant no.2 has expired just two days prior, i.e., on
(3 of 3) [CW-1534/2021]
28.01.2020. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the defendants have furnished a satisfactory reason for
seeking adjournment for producing their witnesses for cross-
examination. Since, the suit involves substantial rights of the
defendants in the immovable property, in the interest of justice
and to advance substantial justice, this Court deems it just and
proper to afford the petitioners one opportunity to produce all
their witnesses for cross-examination. After going through the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Ishwarlal
Mali Rathod (supra), this Court is in respectful agreement with
the observation made therein; but, the same has no applicability
in the peculiar circumstances obtaining in the present case.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated
30.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.2,
Beawar, Ajmer is quashed and set aside. The defendants are given
one opportunity to produce all their witnesses for cross-
examination either on the next date or within a period of 15 days
thereafter, if so directed by the learned trial Court. However,
looking to pendency of the suit for last about seven years, learned
trial Court is requested to expedite its hearing and disposal.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/60
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
