NETTAR SINGH Vs. BRAHMA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the defendants in a suit instituted for permanent prohibitory injunction, as also possession, by plaintiff -respondent Brahma Nand. Issues were framed in the case, second time, on 16th October, 2009, after the plaintiff -respondent amended his plaint. Thereafter, plaintiff adduced evidence. He concluded the same on 29th April, 2011 and then the matter was adjourned to 3rd June, 2011, for the evidence of petitioner No.1. He did not produce any evidence on that date. His counsel appeared and sought adjournment, on the plea that he (petitioner No.1) had suddenly fallen sick. Matter was adjourned to 12th July, 2011, on payment of costs of ˜50/ -. On that date also, it was stated that the petitioner had suddenly fallen sick and adjournment was sought, which was allowed subject to the payment of costs of !100/ - and the matter was adjourned to 4th August, 2011. On that date also, adjournment was sought, on the same plea as on two earlier dates, and the matter was adjourned to 19th August, 2011, on payment of costs of !300/ -.

(2.) ON 19th August, 2011, an application, under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was moved on behalf of the petitioners, seeking leave of the Court to place on record and also to prove certain documents, which consisted of an order, passed by Assistant Collector, under Section 37 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which is dated 10th November, 2010 and some entries in revenue papers, which were corrected, on the basis of this order, as also the initial entries in the revenue papers and the evidence, on which the aforesaid order dated 10th November, 2010 was based.That application was dismissed, on the very day of its filing, vide order Annexure P -6. Petitioners are aggrieved by this order. So, they have approached this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent supports the order of the trial Court, on the ground that there is no jurisdictional error in the passing of the impugned order and also on the ground that the petitioners having not paid the costs, awarded by the trial Court, on 3rd June, 2011, 12th July, 2011 and 4th August, 2011, cannot succeed in the present petition.