MAHESHBHAI KALIDAS BHATT Vs. DHARMENDRAKUMAR BALVANTRAY BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein who are the original plaintiffs have instituted Regular Civil Suit No.58 of 2012 for seeking permanent injunction and to remove the construction on the subject land. The petitioners, pursuant to the summons having been issued, who are the original defendant Nos.4 to 6, appeared and filed written statement. Even in the pending suit, the original plaintiffs have submitted their evidence by way of filing examination-in-chief on affidavit and time was sought for cross-examination by the present petitioners. On account of miscommunication, neither the petitioners, i.e. the original defendant Nos.4 to 6, nor their learned advocate could remain present for proceeding, as a result of which, the right is closed of cross-examination by the concerned Court. It is further the case of the petitioners that the respondent Nos.1 and 2- original plaintiffs have produced further evidence in the suit proceedings and gave an application to close the right of the defendants, i.e. the present petitioners, to lead evidence, and accordingly, the right to lead evidence has been closed. The petitioners also thereafter applied for re-opening their right of cross-examination and the right to lead evidence at Exh.62, which application came to be rejected vide order dated 20.2.2019. As a result of this, the said order is made the subject matter of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh R. Patel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the right of cross-examination is a valuable right which ought not to have been curtailed by passing the impugned order. On the contrary, the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions which this Hon'ble Court may impose upon while opening the right of cross- examination. Mr. Patel has further submitted that there appears to be a delay but not on account of the petitioners but on account of learned advocate representing the petitioners and therefore, for the fault of learned advocate, the petitioners may not be allowed to suffer and even otherwise, the delay always to be construed liberally. As a result of this, the order in question deserves to be corrected. No other submissions have been made.