VIVEK DIXIT Vs. SONA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.12.2012, whereby the right to lead evidence of the plaintiffs is closed by the court below. In fact, this is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier he challenged the order dated 18.10.2012 before this Court. This Court in W.P. No. 8130/2012, on the basis of consent of parties set aside the impugned order therein and directed the court below to fix a final date for deposition of statements of plaintiffs. It was made clear by this Court that it will be open for the trial Court to close evidence and proceed further in accordance with law.

(2.) SHRI H.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that earlier by order dated 18.10.2012, the trial court had closed the right to lead evidence which was reopened by this Court by order dated 02.11.2012. The power of attorney holder Mantoo Dixit on behalf of plaintiffs appeared before the trial court on 12.12.2012. He was cross-examined and said cross-examination was concluded on 12.12.2012 at 04:50 PM. Affidavits of witnesses Sourabh Shrivastava and Indra Devi Jha were already filed on 10.12.2012 but the trial court has refused to take the evidence of such witnesses whose affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC were already on record. He submits that the singular reason assigned by the trial court that as per the order passed by this Court, one opportunity was required to be given and since it is over, no further opportunity may be granted. He submits that this Court gave an observation and left it open for the trial court to decide the same but there is no impediment for the court below to give another opportunity in the interest of justice. He submits that court below's order impugned herein suffers from procedural irregularity and runs contrary to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.