Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2339 (RAJ)

Firm Omprakash Pramod Kumar v. Ram Singh

2022-08-31

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Office report shows that service upon the respondents has been effected but no-one has put in appearance on their behalf. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-firm. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-firm had filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 for claiming certain amount from the respondent No.1. 4. Learned counsel submitted that after appearance of the respondents before the Court below, issues were framed and affidavit of the petitioner-Surendra Kumar was filed before the Trial Court. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court examined the petitioner and certain documents, filed by him, were also placed on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing the application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC for discovery of certain documents, the Court below disposed of the application on 20.03.2010 and thereafter, one witness on behalf of the petitioner i.e. Branch Manager of the Bank, was examined and as such statement of Account of the petitioner-firm was proved and the case was deferred for recording the evidence and the petitioner was asked to get his witnesses examined on 05.11.2010. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had moved an application before the Court below for deferring the hearing of the case, as he was required to appear before the Income Tax Authorities on 05.11.2011 and the petitioner was not in a position to put physical appearance before two courts at the same time. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below by the impugned order dated 05.11.2011 has closed the right of the petitioner to lead evidence. Learned counsel submitted that in spite of giving proper justification showing inability to appear on 05.11.2011, the Court below has wrongly closed the right to lead evidence. 9. This Court finds that while issuing notices in the writ petition, interim order was passed on 25.11.2011 and further proceedings before the Trial Court was stayed. 10. This Court finds that the petitioner since had given sufficient justification for not appearing or producing the evidence on 05.11.2011, as the petitioner was to appear before the Income Tax Authorities, the Court below ought not to have closed the right to lead the evidence. 11. 10. This Court finds that the petitioner since had given sufficient justification for not appearing or producing the evidence on 05.11.2011, as the petitioner was to appear before the Income Tax Authorities, the Court below ought not to have closed the right to lead the evidence. 11. This Court finds that the petitioner who himself has filed an application and in no way it can be presumed that the petitioner who has to recover certain amounts from the respondent would like to delay the proceedings and if genuine reason was furnished, the Court should have been considerate to look into proper justification. 12. This Court accordingly finds that the order dated 05.11.2011 is required to be set aside and as such Trial Court is directed to afford opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence. 13. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the application was filed by the petitioner somewhere in the year 2003 and the matter is not proceeded further and as such the Trial Court should make an endeavor to take up the application and dispose of the same in expeditious manner. 14. This Court also makes it clear that no unnecessary adjournment may be granted for delaying the proceedings to any of the parties. 15. Accordingly, the order dated 05.11.2011, passed by the Court below, is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.