Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 539 (JHR)

Tilak Mahto v. Dulli Mahto@ Sanichar Mahto

2017-03-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the contesting Respondent no.1 being the Plaintiff. 2. Petitioners are Defendants who are aggrieved with the order dated 9.6.2015 passed in Partition Suit No. 02/2009 where under their evidence have been closed. Earlier after closure of evidence of the Defendant Witnesses vide order dated 12.11.2014, on a prayer made for recalling the same and adducing evidence on their behalf, by the order at Annexure-4 dated 25.2.2015 the Court of learned Munsif, Giridih allowed the Defendants to produce their remaining witnesses within the next two dates at the cost of Rs.50/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on the next date on 16.3.2015 the Defendants could not adduce the remaining two witnesses, D.W.1 and D.W.2 on account of strike of the Lawyers in the Subordinate Courts. On the next date 28.4.2015 though attendance was filed on behalf of D.W.1 and D.W.2, but they could not be cross examined and went back. It is submitted that the suit is for partition instituted by the Plaintiff/Respondent no.1 herein and the Defendants have also filed their written statement earlier. It is prayed that in the interest of Justice the Defendants may be allowed some more time to adduce their remaining witnesses. As per the submission of learned counsel for the parties, the suit has not progressed further after closure of the evidence of the Defendants. 3. Learned counsel for the contesting Respondent no.1/Plaintiff has however opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He has submitted that Defendants have taken several adjournments earlier also to adduce their witnesses, but despite indulgence granted by the Court below on 25.2.2015 they failed to examine their witnesses on the next two dates. However, learned counsel for the Respondent no.1/Plaintiff submits that the Court may, in the background circumstances, pass an appropriate order so that proceedings of the suit are not unnecessarily lingered. 4. Considered the submission of the parties in the background facts. The suit relates to partition of property wherein there are several Defendants. Petitioners have disclosed that on the indulgence granted by the Court below on 25.2.2015, for some genuine reasons the Defendants'' witnesses could not be examined on the next two dates. 4. Considered the submission of the parties in the background facts. The suit relates to partition of property wherein there are several Defendants. Petitioners have disclosed that on the indulgence granted by the Court below on 25.2.2015, for some genuine reasons the Defendants'' witnesses could not be examined on the next two dates. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court should allow one more indulgence to the Defendants/petitioners herein to adduce their witnesses within strict time frame with cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the petitioners-. Let the Defendants/petitioner herein examine their remaining witnesses by 10th April 2017. It is open to the Plaintiff to undertake cross examination of the Defendants'' witnesses within the same period. Learned Court would proceed in the matter and endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within 12 weeks, thereafter. In view of the directions passed herein above, the impugned order dated 9.6.2015 shall not come into the way of the learned Court below in allowing further time, as directed herein above to the petitioner to adduce their witnesses. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.