LAWS(MPH)-2021-2-125

ISHWARLAL MALI ROATHOD Vs. GOPAL

Decided On February 17, 2021
Ishwarlal Mali Roathod Appellant
V/S
GOPAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in the pending civil suit No. 13A/2020 have filed these two petitions against the order dtd. 21/12/2020 whereby learned IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-I, Ratlam has closed their right to cross examine the plaintiffs witness. Facts of the case in short are as under:

(2.) Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit against Ramchandra (now dead) and the present petitioners on 14/8/2013. The defendants filed their written statement and issues were framed. On 12/5/2014 plaintiffs filed an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. The defendants took an objection and again the plaintiffs filed an affidavit on 7/3/2015. From 12/5/2015 the petitioners/defendants are seeking time to cross examine the plaintiffs witness. From 12/5/2015 till 2/12/2019 at least ten times adjournments were given with cost as a last opportunity but despite that the defendants have not cross examined the plaintiffs witness so far. On 14/10/2019 time for cross examination was given with cost of Rs.5,000.00 and with the condition that in case they failed to cross examine their right of cross examination would be treated as closed. On 5/11/2019 their right was treated as closed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the defendants filed miscellaneous petition No.6283/2019 before this Court. The miscellaneous petition came up for hearing and this Court has allowed the petition by granting last opportunity to the defendants to cross examine the witness. The operative para of the said order is reproduced below:

(3.) On due consideration of the documents, I find force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and am of the considered opinion that learned Judge of the trial court ought to have given one last opportunity to defendants to cross examine the plaintiffs witnesses especially when the defendant No. 1 himself was undergoing cancer treatment. Counsel for the petitioners has also undertaken that no further adjournment shall be taken henceforth.