TRUST MANDIR Vs. SHARDA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 14/12/2018, passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.76-A/2016, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected and the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence has been closed and has fixed the case for recording of defence evidence.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the plaintiff claims itself to be a registered Public Trust and Mahant Ramsewak Das Ji is the Chief Trustee. It was claimed that the plaintiff Trust is recorded as Bhumiswami of the land bearing survey nos. 302 and 303/1 situated at Laxmi Bai Colony, Near Miss Hill School, Village Mehalgaon, District Gwalior. One portion of the land was leased out by the plaintiff to the father of the defendant Kanhaiyalal and his brother Bhalchand for residential as well as agricultural purpose and Kanhaiyalal after having constructed the house, started paying land revenue to the plaintiff/Trust and after death of Bhalchand and Kanhaiyalal, the respondents have stopped paying land revenue from the year 2012 and it is also claimed that in the meanwhile, Kanhaiyalal had also executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant and accordingly, the suit was filed for declaration of tittle and for permanent injunction as well as for claiming that the sale deed executed by Kanhaiyalal in favour of the defendant, is null and void.

(3.) Issues were framed on 13/11/2014 and thereafter, an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC was filed and the case was fixed for cross- examination. On 01/11/2018, some cross-examination was done, however, due to paucity of time, cross-examination could not be completed. Therefore, on 04/12/2018, further cross-examination was done, however, it could not be completed and thereafter, the case was fixed for further cross-examination on 14/12/2018, but the counsel for the plaintiff filed an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC for adjournment, however, the said application has been rejected by holding that more than three opportunities have been granted and by the impugned order, the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence has been closed.