Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 457 (RAJ)

Gokul Chand v. Civil Judge (S. D. ), Bhadra

2008-02-14

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2008
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—Learned counsel Mr. V.K.Sharma has put in appearance for the respondent No.2. Service is complete. At request, learned counsel for the parties have been heard finally at this stage itself in view of the notice for final disposal issued in the matter. 2. This writ petition has been filed questioning the order dt. 23.10.2007 whereby the learned trial Court has proceeded to close the plaintiff’s evidence after noticing that five opportunities were granted in the past and even on the sixth occasion the plaintiff-petitioner has failed to lead evidence. After attempting to argue the matter for some time in order to support the order impugned, learned counsel Mr. V.K. Sharma appearing for the respondent-defendant, in all fairness, has not put much contention on the proposition that the petitioner-plaintiff may be afforded one opportunity of leading evidence. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 11.01.2008, the petitioner has already deposited the amount of costs of Rs.2,000/-; however, learned counsel Mr. V.K. Sharma submits on instructions that such amount of costs was received by the counsel for the respondent only on 05.02.2008 though the petitioner was required to pay the same by 18.01.2008. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed earlier, this Court is of opinion that even if there had been some delay in deposit of the amount of costs as required by the order dt. 11.01.2008, such delay deserves to be condoned and the time for compliance deserves to be enlarged till the amount has been deposited/paid. Further, in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and for the learned counsel for the respondent in all fairness not putting much emphasis on the order impugned, and rightly so, this Court is of opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dt. 23.10.2007 deserves to be set aside. 5. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed the suit seeking eviction of the respondent from the suit premises and for recovery of arrears of rent; and there does not appear any reason wherefor the petitioner would have been interested in protracting the trial. 23.10.2007 deserves to be set aside. 5. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed the suit seeking eviction of the respondent from the suit premises and for recovery of arrears of rent; and there does not appear any reason wherefor the petitioner would have been interested in protracting the trial. It is noticed that after framing of the issues, the suit in question had remained pending for quite some time in view of the interim order passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1526/2006, said to have been filed by the respondent-defendant. It is also noticed that even after the said writ petition was dismissed, at least on two occasions in the suit, on 09.07.2007 and on 07.08.2007, nothing was transacted before the Court concerned as the lawyers had suspended the work; and additionally, on 09.07.2007 the learned Presiding Officer was also on leave. In the circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has been justified in not putting the matter into much contention. 6. This Court while issuing notices on 11.01.2008 passed the following order:- “Issue notice for final disposal to the respondent No.2 only, returnable within four weeks. Service of respondent No.1 is dispensed with. Notice and PF be filed in two sets within three weeks. Upon filing the same, one set be given ‘Dasti’ to learned counsel for the petitioner for service upon the respondents by registered post. Meanwhile, the trial Court may record the statement of the plaintiff and his witnesses in case the plaintiff pay or deposits the cost of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent No.2 or deposit in the Court on 18.1.2008, the date which is fixed by the trial Court as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No.2 may approach this Court for vacating this order if the respondent No.2 has any grievance against this order. The plaintiff shall complete his evidence in two occasions.” 7. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid order deserves to be made absolute and the writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of, and to the extent relief has been granted in, the aforesaid order dt. 11.01.2008. Ordered accordingly. 8. No costs. * * * * *