Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 515 (RAJ)

Rajveer Singh, S/o. Shri Karnail Singh v. Naseeb Kaur, W/o. Albel Singh

2022-02-15

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against order dated 31.01.2022, whereby, his right to lead evidence has been closed. 2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner, who was a party respondent in the suit had approached this Court earlier by way of filing a writ petition being SBCWP No.882/2022, against the order dated 04.01.2022, whereby, his right to lead evidence had been closed. 3. In petitioner's aforesaid writ petition, on 17.01.2022, this Court passed the following interim order:- "1. Issue notice. 2. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable within a period of six weeks. 3. Notice, when issued, be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that affidavits of all the witnesses of the petitioner will be filed before the trial Court by the next date. 5. In the facts of the present case, it is deemed appropriate and hence ordered that if on the next date of hearing which is reported to be 29.01.2022, the petitioner keeps all his witnesses ready(whose affidavits have been filed) before the trial Court, they shall be examined/cross-examined, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. 6. In case the cost is not accepted by the respondents/learned counsel for the respondents and they want to contest the present writ petition, further proceedings in Civil Original Case No.07/2010 shall remain stayed. 7. The petitioner shall be required to file the affidavit of his witnesses on the next date of hearing, while giving copies of such affidavits at least three days in advance to the opposite counsel. 8. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner does not pay the cost as directed here- in-above or does not produce all the witnesses, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner." 4. According to the petitioner, on 29.01.2022 he appeared in the Court premises and offered cost of Rs.5,000/-, which was duly accepted by respondents' counsel and submitted affidavit of the concerned witnesses by providing copy thereof to the opposite counsel. 5. According to the petitioner, on 29.01.2022 he appeared in the Court premises and offered cost of Rs.5,000/-, which was duly accepted by respondents' counsel and submitted affidavit of the concerned witnesses by providing copy thereof to the opposite counsel. 5. On such date (29.01.2022) as the presiding officer was on leave, the matter was adjourned to 14.02.2022 by way of the following order : ^^29-1-22 Jheku~ P.O. lkgc vodk'k ij gSA dksjksuk ok;jl ds dkj.k vf/koDrk mHk; i{kdkjku mifLFkr ughaA i=koyh okLrs cgl vafre gsrq fnukad %& 14-2-22 dks is'k gksA lgh@& vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k jk;flaguxj ¼ftyk Jhxaxkuxj½** 6. Mr. Shardul, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/his counsel had noted the next dated to 14.02.2022, whereafter, he was telephonically informed that said dated i.e. 14.02.2022 has been changed to 31.01.2022. 7. Petitioner does not dispute the factum of being informed about the next date, i.e. 31.01.2022. He has approached this Court with an assertion that the witnesses were residing outside Sriganganagar and therefore on a short notice of one day, they could not appear for completion of their evidence and thus on 31.01.2022, the witnesses did not remain present. 8. It was also argued by learned counsel that affidavits had already been filed and since on the account of third wave of COVID, virtual hearing was taking place and evidence were not being recorded, the trial Court ought to have granted atleast one opportunity during the physical hearing, so as to complete evidence. 9. Mr. Chawala, learned counsel for the respondents invited Court's attention towards the order sheet that was drawn by the Court at 12.20 p.m. and pointed out that the petitioner's affidavit was taken on record and having regard to the order passed by this Court on 17.01.2022, which came to the notice of link Court later, the case was ordered to be posted on 31.01.2022. 10. He argued that the petitioner's counsel was informed about the date of hearing and therefore, it was required of the petitioner to be ready for completion of evidence. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the firm view that the trial Court has erred in eschewing petitioner's right of leading evidence. 12. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the firm view that the trial Court has erred in eschewing petitioner's right of leading evidence. 12. The facts in case are undisputed that on 29.01.2022, the petitioner had offered a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the counsel for the respondents and the affidavits too were filed. 13. True it is, that this Court vide its order dated 17.01.2022 had ordered that petitioner shall remain present for completion of evidence on the next date of hearing, i.e. 29.01.2022, on which dated admittedly though the affidavits had been filed but the presiding Officer was not present and the case was adjourned. 14. Thereafter, at 2.20 p.m. the link Officer has drawn another order sheet and ordered the matter to be taken up on 31.01.2022, perhaps upon going through the order dated 17.01.2022, passed by this Court. The proceeding of 29.01.2022 drawn at 12.20 p.m. reads thus:- ^^iqu'p % 12%20 PM bruk fy[kus ij tfj;s email izk-i= izkFkhZ jktohjflag ¼izfroknh laå10½ dh vksj ls tfj;s vf/koDrk e; QksVks izfr ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj ds S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 882/22, vkns'k fnå 17&1&22] QksVks izfr 'kiFk&i= jktohj] txrkjflag ds izLrqr gq, tks 'kkfey i=koyh jgsA ekuuh; jktå mPp U;k;ky; }kjk S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 882/22 esa l'krZ ikfjr vkns'k vuqlkj lk{; izLrqr djus dk 'krksZ ds v/khu volj fn;k x;k gS blfy;s i=koyh esa iwoZ esa nh xbZ fnukad dks fujLr dh tkdj i=koyh fnå 31@1@22 dks P.O. lkgc ds le{k is'k gks o P.O. lkgc dks izk-i= e; vkns'k Hkh voyksdukFkZ o vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izLrqr fd;s tkosA mHk;i{kdkjku ds vf/koDrk dks rkjh[k is'kh ls tfj;s email vFkok vU; mi;qDr ek/;e ls lwfpr vfoyEc fd;k tkosA Jhekuth] vf/koDrkx.k dks rkjh[k is'kh 31&1&2 fu;r gksus dh lwpuk tfj;s eksckbZy Qksu o whatsapp lans'k ls nh xbZA** 15. On 31.01.2022, when the affidavits had been filed and the Court was hearing the matter through virtual hearing, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to have adjourned the date of hearing for a suitable date so as to complete his evidence because in any case date fixed by this Court (29.12.2021) had already gone. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the principles of natural justice were required to be followed by the trial Court. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the principles of natural justice were required to be followed by the trial Court. It would hardly have made any difference if the date were kept the same (14.02.2022). 17. The petitioner's evidence ought not to have been closed in the manner that has been done. 18. The impugned order dated 31.01.2022 is therefore quashed and set aside. 19. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on 21.02.2022 and produce his witnesses whose affidavits had been filed on 21.02.2022. On said date the witnesses so produced by the petitioner shall be examined/cross examined and their evidence will be recorded. 20. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. 21. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.