MOHD SHAFEEQ Vs. YOGESH KUMAR VERMA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy raised through the petition at hand arises out of proceedings in the civil suit (CS No.525/2016) in which the respondents 1 to 2 herein are the plaintiffs and the petitioner herein is the defendant no.1.

(2.) The suit was instituted praying for relief in the nature of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction. It was filed in 2013 and had reached the stage of trial when there were certain defaults on the part of the defendant (i.e., the petitioner). This is confirmed by the copy of the proceedings recorded on 27.10.2016 revealing that though one of the defendants was present, the counsel would not appear in spite of the matter being kept in wait till 2:30 p.m. No satisfactory explanation worth the name has been offered for such default.

(3.) The plaintiff Yogesh Kumar Verma was present as his own witness (PW-1), his examination-in-chief having been recorded earlier on 19.02.2015. The cross-examination had been deferred at that stage on the ground the counsel for the defendants was busy. Yet, the counsel would again protract the Additional District Judge (ADJ) closed the opportunity of cross-examination of PW-1 by directions in the order dated 27.10.2016. It may also be noted here that the case had reached the stage of defendants' evidence, when the matter was taken up on 06.02.2017, two witnesses of the defendant were present, examined, cross-examined and discharged. Though affidavit of two other witnesses had been submitted, the witnesses themselves were not present in the court. The ADJ declined to grant any further time and closed the opportunity for defence evidence.