SIKANDAR KHAN Vs. KESHAVKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / defendant has questioned the order dated 22.11.2012 whereby the court below has rejected his application preferred under Order 8 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. The court has further closed the right of petitioner to lead evidence by the same order.

(2.) Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that no doubt, his application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C dated 06.11.2012 (Annexure P/3) was filed at the stage of defence evidence yet it cannot be forgotten that the said documents are necessary to putforth the defence of the petitioner / defendant. The application was belatedly filed because certain documents were received later on under the Right to Information Act. The court below has mechanically rejected the said application. Apart from this, it is urged that court below fixed the matter on 06.11.2012 for 22.11.2012 on consideration of application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. On the next date i.e.22.11.2012 the said application was rejected and simultaneously, petitioner's right to lead evidence was also closed. The Court below was not justified in closing the right to lead evidence. More so when affidavits of defendant witnesses under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C were already filed. In support of aforesaid contention, he relied on ( Mahavir Prasad Jain Vs. Shambhoo Kuchabandiya, 2005 1 MPWN 76) and (Ramchandra Vs. Prembhai and Ors., 1999 2 MPLJ 499).

(3.) Prayer is opposed by Shri S.N.Seth, Advocate for the respondent. He contends that the said application is an example of dilatory tactics. The said application is rightly rejected by the court below. The order does not suffer from any jurisdictional or procedural error. Hence, no interference be made.