SHRAWAN Vs. VASUDEO SON OF DADA RANGARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is the original defendant no.1 in the suit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 for partition and separate possession. In that suit, the defendant no.1 along with his Written Statement has filed a Counter-claim seeking a declaration that the defendant no.1 is the sole owner of the suit property. After the pleadings were placed on record and the plaintiffs had led their evidence, on account of absence of the defendant no.1 and his counsel, the suit was directed to proceed without the evidence of the said defendant no.1. This order was passed on 23rd June,2014. Thereafter, on 15th September, 2014, an application was moved by the defendant no.1 for setting aside that order and for grant of permission to lead evidence. This application came to be rejected on 15th June, 2015. Thereafter, the side of the defendants was closed and the proceedings were kept for final arguments. Being aggrieved, the defendant no.1 has filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons for failure to lead evidence were mentioned in the application dated 15th September, 2014. On account of various difficulties faced by the defendant no.1 as well as his counsel, the evidence could not be led. It was submitted that a Counter-claim has also been filed seeking a declaration of the rights of the defendant no.1 and therefore, due opportunity deserves to be given to the defendant no.1 to lead evidence and contest the proceedings on merit.