MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, LOHARU Vs. JAGDISH KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 2170-C of 2012 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 250 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed. RSA No. 806 of 2012 The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby the appellant-plaintiff was not given effective opportunities and the evidence was closed.

(2.) Mr. Raman B. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the suit for declaration was instituted on 19.02.2009. The issues were framed on 01.06.2009 and the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 15.09.2009, 19.11.2009 and 26.02.2010. On 26.02.2010, evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendant was closed, much less, the suit was dismissed by invoking the provisions of Order 17, Rule 3 CPC. The appeal against the same has also met with the same fate.

(3.) He further submits that in case opportunity is granted subject to terms and conditions by fixing the time line, the plaintiff would lead/close the evidence.