Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 355 (MP)

Ritesh Aanjana v. Kanchan Bai

2025-06-19

SANJEEV S.KALGAONKAR

body2025
ORDER 1. This Misc. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2025 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Senior Division, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District - Indore in R.C.S A No.47 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order XVI rule 1 Sub-rule -3 and rule 1-A of the C.P.C. was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, contends that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract in furtherance of agreement to sale executed between the parties. In para-14 of the plaint, the plaintiff had specifically pleaded amicable settlement proceeding in presence of respected elders of Village - Nayagaon and Village - Simrol between the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff desires to examine Ghanshyam Patidar, Dinesh Silwadiya and Vijay Solanki to substantiate the factum of settlement proceedings between the parties. Although the plaintiff had orally requested for examination of 4-5 witnesses at the commencement of trial, but could not name Ghanshyam Patidar, Dinesh Silwadiya and Vijay Solanki. Learned trial Court closed the plaintiff's evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order XVI rule 3 read with section 151 of the C.P.C, but the trial Court, vide order dated 3.4.2025 rejected the application. The proposed evidence is necessary for just and complete decision of the dispute on merits. Therefore, the petitioner / plaintiff may be given an opportunity to examine the three proposed witnesses. Learned counsel further contends that the defendant's evidence has not commenced, therefore, there would not be any serious harm to the defence of defendant by examination of these witnesses. The petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the delay and proposes to examine the witnesses by producing them at the expense of plaintiff without summon by the Court. 3. Heard. Perused the record and the impugned order. 4. Learned trial Court mentioned that the plaintiff has closed the evidence, thereafter, in order to fill the lacuna, proposed to examine of witnesses Ghanshyam Patidar, Dinesh Silwadiya and Vijay Solanki. The plaintiff had not filed any list of witness and closed his evidence voluntarily, therefore, no ground is made out for examination of the proposed witnesses. 5. 4. Learned trial Court mentioned that the plaintiff has closed the evidence, thereafter, in order to fill the lacuna, proposed to examine of witnesses Ghanshyam Patidar, Dinesh Silwadiya and Vijay Solanki. The plaintiff had not filed any list of witness and closed his evidence voluntarily, therefore, no ground is made out for examination of the proposed witnesses. 5. The plaintiff, in para - 14 of the plaint, has made specific averment with regard to amicable settlement proceedings in presence of elders. The plaintiff proposes to examine the witnesses Ghanshyam Patidar, Dinesh Silwadiya and Vijay Solanki to substantiate the factum of such proceedings. The defendant evidence is yet to commence, therefore, no serious prejudice or irreparable loss would be caused to the defendant. The defendant will have opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses as also to rebut their evidence by producing evidence. The delay in proceedings may be compensated by cost. Learned trial Court ignored these important aspect of the matter, therefore, the impugned order suffers from irregular exercise of jurisdiction. So, interference by this Court is needed to ensure the propriety of the proceedings and to secure ends of justice. 6. Consequently, present Misc. Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.4.2025 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Senior Division, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District - Indore in R.C.S.- A no.47 of 2023 is set aside with the following directions : i) The plaintiff shall produce the witnesses Ghanshyam Patidar, Dinesh Silwadiya and Vijay Solanki at his own cost without summon by the Court, on the date fixed by the trial Court for their examination. ii) The plaintiff shall pay Rs. 2000/- as cost for delay in trial, to the respondent before examination of these witnesses. iii) Non-compliance of these directions shall entail closure of opportunity to produce additional evidence by the plaintiff and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial from the stage as on 9.4.2025. 7. With the aforesaid directions, present Misc. Petition stands disposed of.