JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The defendant no.1/petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 16th December, 2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby evidence of defendant has been closed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that plaintiff-respondent took about two years in leading his evidence in support of her case and the same was closed on 20th October, 2008 and thereafter the case was fixed for defendants' evidence on 20th November, 2008, which was the first date for defendants' evidence and on the same day, the evidence of defendants was closed. He contended that thereafter an application was moved in the trial court itself to reopen evidence of the defendants but the said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 16th December, 2008. He contended that looking to the controversy involved in the present case, it is necessary for the defendants to lead evidence, otherwise they will suffer irreparable loss. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that no evidence was led by defendants on 20th November, 2008 and in their presence their evidence was closed. Thereafter the arguments were heard in the case and judgment was reserved, but for one reason or the other, the same could not be pronounced and now next date in the case is 26th February, 2009. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed a suit for specific performance in respect of property in dispute and for permanent injunction against defendants, which is pending in the trial court. The suit was contested by defendant no.1 by filing written-statement. There is no dispute in between both the parties that suit remained pending for plaintiff's evidence for about two years and plaintiff's evidence was closed on 20th October, 2008 and thereafter the case was fixed for defendants' evidence on 20th November, 2008 and on the date itself, the defendants' evidence was closed by the trial court. The defendant no.1 moved an application to allow her to lead evidence on her behalf but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 16th December, 2008. The defendant no.1 moved an application to allow her to lead evidence on her behalf but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 16th December, 2008. Although the learned counsel for both the parties have argued their case at length by contending that the trial court did not afford proper opportunity to defendant no.1 to lead evidence, whereas as per plaintiff, no evidence was led by defendant on 20th November, 2008 and only thereafter the evidence was closed. Whatever may be the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties but I am satisfied that this is a case wherein it will be just and proper, in the interest of justice, to afford one more opportunity to defendant no.1 to lead evidence as 20th November, 2008 was only the first and last date for her evidence. 7. In view of above discussion, the writ petition of petitioner is allowed. The impugned orders dated 20th November, 2008 as well as 16th December, 2008, both, are set-aside. The trial court is directed to allow the defendant no.1- petitioner to lead her evidence in support of her case. The case in the trial court is fixed on 26th February, 2008. The petitioner is directed to examine her all witnesses on 26th February, 2008 and 27th February, 2008 at her own. It is made clear that no further opportunity in this regard shall be granted to defendant-petitioner and if she does not examine any witness on the aforesaid dates, then her evidence will be deemed to have been closed.The cost is made easy.Writ Petition Allowed. *******