SAKEEL AHMED AND OTHERS Vs. SAHEEDAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are plaintiffs in the suit instituted by them in April 2011 against Smt. Saheedan widow of Baddan son of Jugla and Smt. Israt. The suit is for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The suit was contested. The parties are Meos of Mewat District. According to their rivaz-e-Aam, the widow inherits only life interest in the estate/property inherited from her husband. A Meo widow has no right to alienate property without the consent of her husband's collaterals. The complaint is that in breach of her limited to life interest in the estate of her late husband and contrary to customary rules among the Meos which restrict sale of immovable property without any legal necessity, she executed a sale deed on February 28, 2011 in favour of defendant No.2 conveying the suit property to Israt who is defendant No.2.

(2.) The trial Court framed issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties on July 9, 2013. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs had moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 seeking temporary injunction against the defendants against further alienation of the suit property. The trial Court declined the application on November 20, 2013. The case was fixed for plaintiffs' evidence. Indisputably, the plaintiffs failed to produce their evidence on July 24, 2013, August 8, 2013, August 27, 2013, September 16, 2013, October 5, 2013, and January 21, 2014. The zimni orders passed have been reproduced in para.8 of the petition passed on file w.e.f. October 5, 2013. After the plaintiffs were granted four adjournments, a last opportunity was given to them by order dated October 5, 2013 to produce evidence on November 12, 2013. Arguments on stay application were heard on November 12, 2013. The case was posted to November 20, 2013 for orders. On November 20, 2013 orders were announced. The application was dismissed and the matter was posted for January 21, 2014 for evidence of the plaintiffs. On the next date i.e. March 5, 2014 the witnesses of the plaintiffs were again not in attendance and the case was posted for a sufficiently long time but was made subject to last opportunity. On the adjourned date i.e. on April 22, 2014 there was again failure to produce evidence. A date was requested. The Court accepted the request and posted the matter on May 6, 2014 again with last opportunity subject to costs of Rs.500/- to be deposited in the District Legal Services Authority.

(3.) On May 6, 2014 despite three last opportunities granted and several previous adjournments the plaintiffs failed to produce their evidence. The learned trial Court proceeded to close the plaintiffs' evidence by order on May 6, 2014.