SOMPURA ARUNKUMAR PRABHASHANKAR Vs. HEIRS OF SOMPURA KUMUDBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order passed below exhibit - 120, dtd. 9/3/2018, in Regular Civil Suit No.72 of 2000 by the Principal Civil Judge, Wadhwan, whereby the application filed by respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 - original plaintiffs, prayed for reopening of their right to lead evidence, came to be allowed.

(2.) Mother of respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 - Kumudben @ Kamuben Sompura, had filed a Regular Civil Suit No.72 of 2000 against the present petitioners - original defendant Nos.1 & 2 as also other trustee, praying for getting back the possession of the rented premises under the provisions of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Evidence of the original plaintiff by way of affidavit on oath, came to be filed on 15/6/2006 and the original plaintiff was cross-examined also. The evidence of the plaintiff came to be over on 14/10/2010. However, it appears that thereafter no other witnesses were examined by the plaintiff and a pursis vide exhibit - 50 dtd. 19/11/2010, the learned advocate declared that he does not wish to lead further evidence and he closes his right to lead evidence further. The said pursis came to be recorded by the learned Judge on that very day. However, on the next date of hearing being 6/1/2011, vide exhibit -51, the learned advocate for the plaintiff applied for an adjournment on the ground that the case is posted for further evidence on behalf of the plaintiff but since the plaintiff is sick and unable to come to the Court, an adjournment was sought for. The said application exhibit - 51 came to be rejected by the Court as evidence of the plaintiff was closed on a pursis filed on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore, adjournment on that ground was refused.

(3.) Mr. Satyen Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the order impugned in this petition is unreasoned and not disclosing what weighed with the learned Judge, permitting to reopen the right to lead evidence which was closed on the own volition of plaintiff, not once but on several occasions. It is further submitted that even it cannot be ascertained from the impugned order, what weighed with the court to allow the same. He has further submitted that when the case is posted for final arguments after parties have closed their evidence out of their own volition, such attempt to get right to lead evidence reopened, which is already over willingly, should not be permitted. He has further submitted that issues in this case came to be framed vide exhibit - 18 on 21/4/2004.