MAYA DEVI KUKREJA Vs. MEERA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts relevant for the purposes of this writ petition are that the plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Suit is being opposed by the defendants. After raising issues, learned trial Judge proceeded with recording of evidence. Plaintiff/petitioner in her evidence submitted affidavits containing chief-examination of herself as well as of few of witnesses. Since Ex.P/3 marked in plaintiff's chief examination was not available, cross- examination on the plaintiff as well as her witnesses could not be conducted.

(2.) On 25-4-2009, learned trial Judge directed the plaintiff to make available Ex.P/3 in original for cross-examination on the next date of hearing on 27-6-2009. However, on 25-4-2009 itself an affidavit containing chief examination of one Parasram Kukreja as plaintiff's additional witness was submitted which was not accepted by the trial Court on the ground that three opportunities for evidence were already exhausted by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this denial, plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India by way of the present writ petition.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that impugned order causes manifest injustice inasmuch as plaintiff/petitioner is deprived of her valuable right to adduce evidence which was being exercised with promptness in lawful manner.