Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2311 (RAJ)

Charanjeet Kaur @ Charan Kaur v. Nardev Singh

2012-12-14

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 3.11.2012 (Annex.-10) passed by the Additional District judge, Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar in Civil Case No. 87/2004, whereby as application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the C.P.C. and 165 of the Evidence Act is rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier two petitioners were filed by the petitioner, out of which S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 831/2012 was decided vide order dated 27.1,2012, in which an order was passed by this Court directing the trial Court to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal on the next date of hearing and further the trial Court was directed to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal and thereafter proceed in the matter. In other writ petition filed by the petitioner being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9994 of 2012 a specific order was passed by this Court on 1.11.2011, by which the trial Court was specifically directed to record the statement of witness Mahendra Singh for the purpose of rebuttal only and not to prove the issue No.1, but the trial Court is not making compliance of the said order and rejected the prayer of the petitioner, although this Court specifically directed the trial Court to record the statement of Mahendra Singh in rebuttal only. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the order impugned dated 3.11.2012, the trial Court observed that the writ petition of the petitioner has been rejected, whereas specific direction was given by this court for recording the statement of witness Mahendra Singh in rebuttal, therefore, it is a case in which complete non-compliance is made by the trial Court, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and the trial Court may be directed to record the statement of Mahendra Singh in rebuttal. 5. 5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dated 27.1.2012 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 831/2010, wherein following directions were issued: "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the firm view that earlier opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal and not to prove any issue for which evidence was already recorded by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the clarification and direction to the trial Court that the statement of witness Mahendra Singh may be recorded for the purpose of rebutal only and- not to prove issue No. 1." I have also perused the order dated 1.11.2012 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9994/2012, in which the following directions were issued: "After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the order impugned, it is revealed that although no error has been committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order but in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal on the next date of hearing and trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal and thereafter proceed in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms." 6. Upon perusal of the order dated 1.11.2012, it is abundantly clear that the trial Court was directed to record the statement of Mahendra Singh for the purpose of rebuttal only and no other opportunity was given to the petitioner to file any application or to file any affidavit before the trial Court, but it is strange that in spite of the order passed by this Court for producing witness Mahendra Singh before the Court for recording the statement, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. and 165 of the Evidence Act making a prayer to the trial Court to take the affidavit on record. 7. 7. In my opinion, the petitioner himself flouted the order passed by this Court because only opportunity given to the petitioner was to produce witness Mahendra Singh before the Court for recording his statement, but contrary to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. and 165 of the Evidence Act, which is in contravention of the order passed by this Court, therefore, the trial Court cannot be blamed for the order passed upon the said application. 8. Hence, there is no force in this writ petition. The same, therefore, is dismissed. However, if-the petitioner wants to produce witness Mahendra Singh before the trial Court or recording his statement as ordered by this Court, then he may do so.Petition dismissed. *******