KIRAN SINGH Vs. P GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 4,60,000/- with interest before the trial court. The case was fixed for petitioner's/defendant No.1's evidence on 6th August, 2007, on which date the petitioner's counsel requested for adjournment on the ground that the petitioner had filed a transfer application before the learned District Judge. However, the trial court closed the evidence of defendant No.1 vide impugned order. The relevant para of the impugned order is reproduced as under :-

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner had committed a mistake before the trial court. He vehemently argued that some costs should be imposed on the petitioner and she should be permitted to appear in the witness box. He also submitted that the petitioner was under the impression that till the transfer application was decided, she was not supposed to lead her evidence. Consequently, she did not obey the orders of the Court. It was also pointed out that the transfer application is yet to be decided. Its copy has also been placed on record. He admitted that the proceedings before the trial court were not stayed by the District Judge and as such, the orders passed by the trial court cannot be faulted. He further pointed out that the petitioner is an illiterate poor lady and in the interests of justice, one more opportunity should be granted in her favour.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner, then it will set up a wrong precedent. He opined that the orders of the Court should have been obeyed under all circumstances. He further prayed that in case this petition is allowed, then the opportunity to appear in witness box be given to the petitioner before 23rd October, 2007, the next date fixed before the trial court.