LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-357

SHASHI SHANKAR SHARMA Vs. PRAN NATH SHARMA

Decided On May 13, 2008
SHASHI SHANKAR SHARMA Appellant
V/S
PRAN NATH SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petition, petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 11. 1. 2008 by which learned ADJ has rejected review application seeking review of order dated 30. 11. 2007 closing evidence of petitioners/defendants.

(2.) A suit for partition and rendition of account has been filed by respondents/plaintiffs before the learned ADJ. It is stated that the evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs has already been concluded. For the first time matter was listed for evidence of petitioners/defendants on 4. 1. 2007. Thereafter petitioners/defendants have already examined four witnesses. It is further stated that when the matter was fixed on 30. 11. 2007 for petitioners/defendants evidence, petitioners could not produce its witness Shri Manoj Kumar as the said witness was avoiding to appear before the court for his evidence. The said fact was recorded by the learned ADJ and despite that evidence of the petitioners/defendants was closed on that day and the matter was adjourned to 11. 1. 2008 for final arguments. On that day review application seeking review of order dated 30. 11. 2007 was also rejected. The aforesaid witness is an attesting witness to the will. It is stated that the petitioners/defendants could not produce the witness Sh. Manoj Kumar due to the reasons mentioned above and the learned ADJ vide impugned order dated 30. 11. 2007 closed the evidence of petitioners/defendants. Thereafter, application for review was filed which was also dismissed vide order dated 11. 1. 2008. Aggrieved with the same present petition is filed.

(3.) COUNSEL for petitioners/defendants has contended that learned ADJ has arbitrarily closed the evidence of the petitioners/defendants without affording reasonable opportunity to lead their evidence. It is contended that there is no delay on the part of the petitioners/defendants in concluding their evidence. It is contended that impugned order has serious consequences upon petitioners/defendants inasmuch as they will not be in a position to prove their stand. Learned counsel further contended that there is only one witness i. e. Shri Y. L. Sachdeva, Advocate which is to be examined by petitioners/defendants. If the impugned order is not set aside, it will cause great prejudice to them.