Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1471 (RAJ)

Dinesh Kumar v. Chetan Kumar

2017-07-04

DINESH MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 30.03.2017 whereby, his evidence has been closed by the learned Trial Court, inter alia, observing that on three earlier occasions, last opportunity was granted to him. 2. Mr. Matoria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 30.03.2017, petitioner''s counsel Mr. Keshu Lal Meena was indisposed and hence, a written application was filed by his associate, Mr. Ramesh Chand before the learned Trial Court praying for a short adjournment on account of his illness. 3. Mr. Matoria, submitted that the learned Trial Court has not applied justice oriented approach and has closed petitioner''s evidence, which has resulted in serious failure of justice. On the other hand, Mr. Anuj Sahlot, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had been granted as many as 15 opportunities to lead his evidence and further contended that the plaintiff''s counsel, namely Mr. Ramesh Chand was very much available in the Court, for facilitating leading of the evidence. 4. In light of these submissions, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the order impugned is perfectly just and valid and does not call for any interference. 5. Having heard learned counsels for the rival parties and after perusing the order impugned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has seriously erred in passing the impugned order. It is not in dispute that an application had been moved by the associate of plaintiff''s counsel, intimating that counsel Mr. Keshu Lal Meena was indisposed; and in spite of such application, the learned Trial Court has proceeded to close the evidence, taking into account, the earlier adjournments granted to the plaintiff. 6. It is to be noted that the Courts are required to decide the application seeking adjournment on the facts obtaining on that particular date, without being swayed or influenced by the earlier adjournments, which have been granted by the Court, on the basis of circumstances so existing. A genuine request for adjournment should not be turned down, merely because the Court on the earlier occasion has been a bit amiable or benevolent in granting the adjournment. 7. The impugned order dated 30.03.2017, closing the evidence of the petitioner - plaintiffs is quashed and set aside, for the reasons aforesaid. A genuine request for adjournment should not be turned down, merely because the Court on the earlier occasion has been a bit amiable or benevolent in granting the adjournment. 7. The impugned order dated 30.03.2017, closing the evidence of the petitioner - plaintiffs is quashed and set aside, for the reasons aforesaid. 8. Mr. Matoria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner would produce all his witnesses, on the next date (i.e. 12.07.2017), before the learned Trial Court and permit their cross-examination, so as to complete his evidence. 9. It is made clear that the petitioner shall produce all his witnesses peremptorily on the next date i.e. 12.07.2017 and for the inconvenience caused to be defendant -respondent, he would pay a cost of Rs. 3000/- on or before the next date of hearing. 10. On failure to produce the witnesses on 12.07.2017 to pay the cost, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter, in accordance with the law. 11. With the observations foregoing, the writ petition stands allowed.