Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 492 (JHR)

Meena Kumari v. Most Urmila Sinha

2021-07-06

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : The present case is taken up today through video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.01.2019 (Anneuxre-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Civil Misc. Case No. 07 of 2019 (arising out of Partition Suit No. 29 of 1990) whereby the petition dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 27.09.2018 closing the defence evidence, has been rejected. 3. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the content of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner is the defendant no. 1(b) in Partition Suit No. 29 of 1990. On perusal of copies of the order-sheets of Partition Suit No. 29 of 1990 particularly the order dated 27.09.2018, it appears that vide said order both the parties of the suit were directed to come prepared for argument. Thereafter, the said suit was taken up on several dates i.e. 01.10.2018, 03.10.2018, 09.01.2019, 10.01.2019, 15.01.2019 and 16.01.2019. Though on the said dates, the attendance of the plaintiffs and the defendants were filed through their respective lawyers, however no application for recalling the order dated 27.09.2018 was filed on behalf of the defendants particularly the defendant no. 1(b) i.e. the petitioner herein. However on 09.01.2019, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 27.09.2018 praying inter alia to permit her to be examined as defendant witness in the said suit. 5. The learned court below vide impugned order dated 18.01.2019 rejected the said petition primarily on the ground that the defence evidence was closed on 27.09.2018 and thereafter the case was fixed for argument which was about to be concluded. The learned court below in its order dated 18.01.2019 also observed that after closure of evidence on 27.09.2018, the suit was taken up on several dates and no such petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant no. 1(b) to produce herself as a defendant witness. 6. I see no infirmity in the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned court below in Civil Misc. Case No. 07 of 2019 (arising out of Partition Suit No. 29 of 1990). 1(b) to produce herself as a defendant witness. 6. I see no infirmity in the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned court below in Civil Misc. Case No. 07 of 2019 (arising out of Partition Suit No. 29 of 1990). The order-sheets of the case suggest that the petitioner/her lawyer has proceeded in the suit in a very casual manner as despite filing of attendance, no petition for recalling the order dated 27.09.2018 was filed. Moreover, this Court is also mindful of the fact that the partition suit is of the year 1990 which has remained pending for three decades and as such there is no scope for the parties to further linger the said suit. 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.