SHYAMNATH SHARMA Vs. KRIPAL SINGH BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the trial Court has closed his right to produce evidence vide order dtd. 26/9/2018 (Annexure P/8).

(2.) The facts reflect that the petitioner filed a suit in the year 2006 seeking injunction against the respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit property. He concluded his evidence in the year 2011 but thereafter started filing interim applications at certain intervals. He filed 3-4 applications for taking additional documents on record. The last of them was considered and dismissed by the trial Court vide order dtd. 19/9/2018 which is under challenge in M.P. No.4705/2018. After the dismissal of that application, some more opportunities were granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence with a cogent warning that since the case pertains to the year 2006 and there are directions of the High Court to conclude such cases at the earliest, no further adjournment shall be granted. The trial Court repeatedly granted the last opportunity to adduce evidence with the aforesaid warning but the petitioner never bothered or honoured them. Ultimately, the trial Court refused to grant more opportunities and closed his right to adduce evidence.

(3.) The grounds urged by the petitioner are that he sought permission to produce some additional documents and was hopeful that the trial Court ought to allow that application and if his application would be allowed, he would adduce his evidence. He was ready to do so but since the application was rejected, and he challenged that order, no evidence could be adduced by him. It is further averred that while returning back to Bhopal, the petitioner fell sick on account of viral infection, therefore, he could not appear or produce his witnesses before the Court. A medical certificate was annexed along with the application, therefore, the trial Court should have believed upon the statement made by him. The absence of the petitioner was not willful whereas it was on account of his sickness which was beyond his control. The petitioner had already led the evidence and wanted to examine witnesses only with regard to the documents which were relevant and were sought to be produced by him, therefore, no prejudice was likely to cause to the other side, if the documents would have been taken on record and the petitioner would have been granted an opportunity to prove them.