MARUTI AGARWADEKAR Vs. BIKARO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dtd. 27/8/2019 by which the petitioner's/plaintiff's application for reopening of the evidence was rejected with costs of Rs.2,000.00.

(3.) The impugned order recites that in this matter, the petitioner has sought for no less than 23 adjournments. Further, even after the order dtd. 2/7/2019, closing the petitioner's evidence was made, the petitioner appeared on two further dates i.e. on 16/7/2019 and 8/8/2019 but no application was filed for recall of the order dtd. 2/7/2019. The order also records that on 27/8/2019, when the impugned order was made, the trial Court inquired with the petitioner whether the petitioner was willing to examine the next witness immediately, but the petitioner/his learned counsel was not prepared to do the same.