JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.05.2018 and the subsequent order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the learned Commercial Court, Jaipur and Udaipur respectively in the petitioner's suit. 2. The facts relevant for the controversy involved in the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit for recovery against the defendant-respondent before the District Judge, Udaipur, which was later on transferred to Commercial Court, Jaipur in view of the provisions of Commercial Court Act, 2015. 3. When the matter was at the stage of plaintiff's evidence and petitioner was being cross-examined, the Commercial Court, Jaipur, required him to produce bank statement and TDS etc., for the period 2005-2010 for which he sought time. According to the petitioner, he tried to procure those documents from his Chartered Accountant for which he could not get his cross-examination complete. The Commercial Court, Jaipur on 27.03.2018 granted last opportunity to the petitioner for completion of his evidence and the matter was posted on 29.05.2018, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-. 4. On 29.05.2018, the plaintiff did not produce himself for being cross-examined, for which his right to lead evidence was closed by the Commercial Court, Jaipur. 5. The matter was thereafter transferred to Commercial Court, Udaipur by the Commercial Court, Jaipur vide record of proceedings dated 05.09.2018. 6. Upon transfer of the case to the Commercial Court, Udaipur, the petitioner moved an application dated 1.11.2018, while referring to his earlier application dated 28.10.2017 which he had filed in the District Court, Udaipur (on which date the matter was transferred by the District Judge to Commercial Court, Jaipur). By way of the application dated 01.11.2018, the petitioner explained in detail the reasons for which he could not get his cross-examination complete, viz., the documents such as TDS certificates, bank statements, income tax return etc. for the period 2005-2010 could not be procured. The petitioner pointed out that in the earlier application dated 28.10.2017 filed by him, he had showed his inability to produce the requisite documents, in a bid to get absolvement of bringing such documents. 7. for the period 2005-2010 could not be procured. The petitioner pointed out that in the earlier application dated 28.10.2017 filed by him, he had showed his inability to produce the requisite documents, in a bid to get absolvement of bringing such documents. 7. In the application under consideration (dated 01.11.2018) filed by the petitioner, he prayed that the order 29.05.2018, vide which his evidence was closed be recalled and the petitioner be permitted one opportunity for completion of his evidence. 8. The defendant filed a reply to the petitioner's application dated 01.11.2018 and opposed the grant of any further opportunity to the petitioner, as the petitioner wanted to prolong the proceedings. The petitioner's aforesaid application came to be rejected by the Commercial Court, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') with a cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 9. Mr. Kailash Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.02.2019, submitted that by way of the application under consideration filed on 01.11.2018, the petitioner had simply prayed that one more opportunity be granted so that he be cross-examined and complete his evidence, while making a passing reference of the earlier application dated 28.10.2017. Learned counsel contended that a reference of earlier application dated 28.10.2017 was made simply with a view to explain the delay and to show that the petitioner was unable to procure the requisite documents. Substance and essence of the application dated 01.11.2018 was simply to seek for recalling of the earlier order and getting one more opportunity. 10. Learned counsel contended that the trial Court while deciding the petitioner's application dated 01.11.2018, has gone into the facts relating to his earlier application dated 28.10.2017 and recorded a finding that the said application though available on record cannot be said to have been filed 28.10.2017. While maintaining that the said application was filed by the petitioner after giving copy thereof to the defendant, which is evident from the endorsement on the application by the concerned Court, he submitted that nevertheless the factum that the application has been filed or not, had hardly any bearing of petitioner's prayer for recalling of the order dated 29.05.2018 and praying for opportunity of leading evidence. He pointed out that the trial Court has made unwarranted observation regarding his earlier application dated 28.10.2017 and without discussing the merit of the present application, has rejected the same with an exemplary cost of Rs. He pointed out that the trial Court has made unwarranted observation regarding his earlier application dated 28.10.2017 and without discussing the merit of the present application, has rejected the same with an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 11. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent per contra contended that the petitioner is not only negligent but is also making all efforts to delay the case for one reason or the other. Though he admitted that the plaintiff had given a copy of the application dated 28.10.2017 to the defendant's counsel, but contended that the application was not filed by the petitioner. He however urged that it is a matter of concern, as to how the same has come on record. Learned counsel tried to make out a case that the said application dated 28.10.2017 was not filed. 12. However, this Court is not inclined to fall in the same error in which the trial Court had leaded itself. This Court deems it appropriate to decide as to whether the petitioner-plaintiff is/was entitled to opportunity for completion of his evidence or not. 13. In the present factual backdrop when the matter has been transferred from District Court, Udaipur to Commercial Court, Jaipur, where after from Commercial Court, Jaipur to Commercial Court, Udaipur coupled with petitioner's inability to procure the balance-sheets, TDS relating to period 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2010, petitioner's inability to make himself available for cross-examination can be understood. 14. The petitioner's reference to the earlier application dated 28.10.2017 was apparently with a view to show that he was unable to produce those documents and while keeping that in mind, the Court should condone the delay and permit him to complete his cross-examination. 15. The trial Court however entered into an uncalled for question which was a non issue and denied the petitioner opportunity of completing his evidence essentially being swayed by the conclusion that application dated 28.10.2017 was not filed. Though the finding of the Court below is not based upon sound reasoning and other view is also possible, but even if it is assumed that earlier application dated 28.10.2017 has come on record surreptitiously, nothing substantial turns out for which petitioner's application can be rejected and that too with the exemplary cost of Rs. Though the finding of the Court below is not based upon sound reasoning and other view is also possible, but even if it is assumed that earlier application dated 28.10.2017 has come on record surreptitiously, nothing substantial turns out for which petitioner's application can be rejected and that too with the exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- The Court below ought to have applied justice oriented approach while bearing in mind that the petitioner is the plaintiff, having filed the suit for recovery of huge amount and he cannot afford to have his right of leading evidence eschewed. 16. In the facts of the case and keeping the interest of justice in paramount consideration and the fact that the petitioner is a plaintiff, this Court deems it expedient and in the interest of justice to allow one more opportunity to the plaintiff to complete his evidence, while holding that the learned trial court has committed an error of law in rejecting the petitioner's application with a cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 17. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.05.2018 and 12.02.2019 are quashed and set aside. 18. On the next date of hearing, which is reported to be 05.07.2019, the petitioner shall keep himself ready for completion of his cross-examination. He shall also keep other witnesses whose affidavits have been filed by him, ready/available for the purpose of cross-examination. The Court concerned shall complete their evidence and if required, give one or more dates if in the available time, their evidence is not complete. The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the defendant/defendant's counsel on the next date of hearing which shall take care of the cost imposed by the trial Court on 29.05.2018. 19. It is made clear that on petitioner's failure to produce himself or his witnesses on 05.07.2019 or failure to pay the cost of Rs. 20,000/-, no further opportunity shall be granted. 20. Petition allowed.