Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5078 of 2018 Petitioner :- Dukhantu Respondent :- Mohan Lal And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yadvesh Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 14.5.2018 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Varanasi in Original Suit No.744 of 1993 (Lakshmi Lal vs. Ram Avatar) by which he has closed the right of the defendant-petitioner to lead his evidence.
This much is reflected from the record that the petitioner moved an application for giving some more time to lead his evidence in the aforesaid suit and the trial court had given one week's time to the petitioner to lead his evidence and fix the date on 14.5.2018 but the petitioner could not produce his evidence due to his personal difficulties. Immediately thereafter the petitioner approached the trial court for leading his evidence but by an order dated 14.5.2018 the trial court has refused to accept the evidence on the ground that the proceedings of evidence have already been closed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that in the present matter, sympathetic consideration is liable to be extended in favour of the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bhagwat Prasad Sharma & Anr. v. District Judge, G.B. Nagar & Ors., 2012 (90) ALR 80, wherein this Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in State Bank of India v. Km. Chandra Govindji, JT 2000 (Suppl.2) SC 433 allowed the petitioners to lead evidence subject to cost of Rs.5000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kewal Krishan v. Harnek Singh & Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 117 in which the Apex Court provided the appellant-plaintiff one more opportunity of leading evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner precisely submits that he may also be given one more indulgence subject to some reasonable cost.
After hearing learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and perusing the record in question, the Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot sustain and the same is accordingly set aside.
The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to give one more opportunity to the defendant- petitioner to lead his evidence after imposing substantial cost and inviting objection from the plaintiff-respondent.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 RKP