Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2048 (JHR)

Teklal Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-28

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that order dated 12.10.2017 has not been complied by the petitioners, though at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners for complying order dated 12.10.2017, on 17.11.2017 further time was granted. 2. Aggrieved of order dated 13.08.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 3 of 2007 by which an application for recall of order dated 03.06.2009 has been declined, the petitioners (petitioner no. 2-Gondiya Devi, wife of Teklal Mahto wrongly made petitioner in the present proceeding), have approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submits that the petitioner no. 1 on account of circumstances beyond his control could not appear in the pending suit on the date fixed and consequently cross-examination could not be done. Referring to the medical certificates vide Annexures-1 to 5, the learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 would submit that the petitioner no. 1 who was seriously ill and was advised bed-rest could not have appeared for his cross-examination, however, these facts have been ignored by the trial Judge and the plaintiffs' evidence was closed illegally. 4. A glance at the application dated 29.06.2009 filed by the petitioner for recall of order dated 03.06.2009 by which plaintiffs' evidence was closed would disclose that the petitioner has pleaded that from 03.06.2009 he was admitted at G.D. Bagaria Seva Sadan, Giridih. A discharge ticket from the said hospital has been produced vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. This document would disclose that the petitioner was admitted on 13.06.2009 and he was discharged on 17.06.2009. Apparently, the stand taken in paragraph no. 3 of the application dated 29.06.2009 is false wherein the petitioner has claimed that he became ill on 03.06.2009 and he was admitted in the hospital on 06.06.2009. 5. The trial Judge has recorded that for examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses the case was posted on as many as 12 dates beginning from 15.07.2008. The last date was 03.06.2009 on which the petitioner no. 1 did not appear and consequently plaintiffs' evidence was closed. Infact, on 21.04.2009, on plaintiffs' petition for adducing further evidence, opportunity was granted on payment of cost of Rs. 100/- and the plaintiffs were granted last opportunity for adducing evidence on 30.03.2009, 15.05.2009 and 25.05.2009. The last date was 03.06.2009 on which the petitioner no. 1 did not appear and consequently plaintiffs' evidence was closed. Infact, on 21.04.2009, on plaintiffs' petition for adducing further evidence, opportunity was granted on payment of cost of Rs. 100/- and the plaintiffs were granted last opportunity for adducing evidence on 30.03.2009, 15.05.2009 and 25.05.2009. In the above facts, in my opinion, the learned trial Judge has rightly declined to recall order dated 03.06.2009 by which plaintiffs' evidence was closed. 6. Finding no merit in the challenge to the impugned order 13.08.2009 the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.