SUKANYA NAGARAJ Vs. SUPRIYA RAMAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant No.1 feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Court below on I.A.Nos.1 to 3/2022, wherein the application filed by the present petitioner - defendant No.1 requesting the Court to recall D.W.1 so as to enable the petitioner to lead further evidence is rejected. The application seeking production of certain documents was also rejected by the learned Judge. This common order is under challenge.

(2.) Respondent No.1 - plaintiff has instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.25406/2013. The materials on record clearly demonstrate that the present petitioner - defendant No.1 has made all possible efforts to protract hearing of the suit. It is in this background, the learned Judge was not inclined to recall the present defendant to permit him to lead further evidence. Though This Court would find laxness on the part of the petitioner - defendant No.1, however, to prove his bonafide, a cost of Rs.10,000.00 was imposed on the petitioner payable to respondent No.1 - plaintiff. The petitioner - defendant No.1 has complied the order and cost of Rs.10,000.00 was paid to respondent No.1 - plaintiff. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - plaintiff submits that cost is paid.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner today would also undertake before this Court that respondent No.1 will conclude his evidence within three weeks. He would also fairly submit to this Court that petitioner - defendant No.1 will not insist to record evidence by way of commission and he will tender his evidence physically in the open Court. The said statement is taken on record. Therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set-aside.