Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1010 (JHR)

Md. Shamim Ahmad v. Shankar Mitra

2008-08-27

R.K.MERATHIA

body2008
Judgment Order Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.2.2008 passed by the Sub-Judge, Vth, Dhanbad, allowing the petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent to close the evidence of the plaintiff, and also the order dated 5.6.2008, closing the evidence of defendant-petitioner. 3. It appears that the defendant-petitioner raised a frivolous contention that the plaintiff should be cross-examined at the cost of the plaintiff, which was rejected by order dated 25.5.2007 against which the petitioner and other tenants filed writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos. 3930, 3945, 3951, 3953, 3954, 3956, 3962 and 4305 of 2007 which were dismissed by order dated 23.7.2007. Thereafter the defendant-petitioner did not choose to cross-examine the plaintiff, who was examined on commission. The Pleader Commissioner discharged the plaintiff and returned his evidence to the court. Thereafter the defendant-petitioner filed a petition to recall the plaintiff witness for cross-examination which was allowed on 2.1.2008 on the condition of payment of cost of Rs. 250/as Pleader Commissioner's expenses and additional expenses of Rs. 500/- by the next date, failing which, such petition filed by the defendant-petitioner was to be treated as rejected, but in spite of several opportunities given to him, instead of depositing the said amount of Rs. 500/-, he contended that the said amount should be recovered from him at the time of passing the judgment and decree in the suit. In these circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent filed a petition for closing his case which was allowed by the impugned order dated 25.2.2008. 4. This is a suit for eviction of the year 1999. The learned court below has rightly found that the defendant-petitioner is simply trying to delay the disposal of the suit on one pretext or the other. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.2.2008 especially in view of the conduct of the defendant-petitioner. 5. From the order dated 5.6.2008, it appears that nobody appeared on behalf of the defendant-petitioner when the matter was taken up by the learned court below. The court below held that the defendant-petitioner is adopting the delaying tactics and, accordingly, closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner. 6. In the circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the aforesaid order dated 5.6.2008 and give one opportunity to the defendant. The court below held that the defendant-petitioner is adopting the delaying tactics and, accordingly, closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner. 6. In the circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the aforesaid order dated 5.6.2008 and give one opportunity to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant is permitted to produce his witnesses and conclude his evidence within four weeks from today, failing which, the evidence of the defendant-petitioner shall be closed. The parties are directed to cooperate in early disposal of the suit. 7. With these observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. However, no costs.