Rajasthan High Court
Babu Lal S/O Shri Sedu Ram vs Shravan Kumar S/O Shri Kana, ... on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2023/RJJP/002314]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12846/2021
1. Babu Lal S/o Shri Sedu Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Village Tunga, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Jagdish S/o Shri Sedu Ram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o
Village Tunga, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Ramesh S/o Shri Sedu Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Village Tunga, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
Shravan Kumar S/o Shri Kana, R/o Village Lalpura, Tehsil Bassi,
District Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Sharma and R.P. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parag Rastogi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment / Order
09/02/2023
By way of filing instant writ petition the plaintiffs-petitioners
(for short 'the petitioners') have assailed the order dated
14.09.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur District,
Jaipur, in Civil Suit No.117/2018 (44/2015) whereby the
application dated 8.4.2021 filed by the petitioners to open their
evidence and to give opportunity of leading evidence was
dismissed and also to recall the order dated 16.03.2021 by which
the petitioners evidence was closed.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
filed a civil suit for specific performance in the year 2015 wherein
the issues were framed on 31.05.2017. Counsel further submits
[2023/RJJP/002314] (2 of 3) [CW-12846/2021]
that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to lead their
evidence and vide order dated 16.03.2021 closed the evidence of
the petitioners. On 8.4.2021 the petitioners moved an application
before the court below to allow the petitioners evidence. The
learned court below without properly appreciating the contents of
the application, rejected the same vide order dated 14.09.2021.
Counsel further submits that the learned court below has wrongly
observed that more than 20 opportunities were given to the
petitioners to lead evidence and the petitioners misused those
opportunities.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the defendant
respondent submits that the order of the learned court below is
just and proper in view of the fact that sufficient opportunities
were given to the petitioners to lead evidence but they have failed
to do so. Even the opportunity to lead the evidence was closed
subject to making payment of cost and even the petitioners have
failed to make the use of the opportunities given to them.
In support of his submissions, counsel has placed
reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of
Gajanand & Another Vs. Additional Civil Judge & Others., reported
in 2012(4) WLC (Raj.) 356.
Having considered the contents of the application dated
8.4.2021 filed by the petitioners and the order-sheets of the suit
proceedings of the learned court below showing that the
petitioners have failed to submit the evidence even after ample
opportunities, I find no error or illegality in the orders dated
14.09.2021 and 16.03.2021 passed by the learned court below.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
[2023/RJJP/002314] (3 of 3) [CW-12846/2021]
Since the main petition has been dismissed, the stay
application also stands dismissed.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
SHARMA NK /52
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
