VIJAY SINGH Vs. LALITA KARKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dtd. 6/4/2022, passed by the 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court") in a suit titled "Colonel Vijay Singh vs. Col. Dalbir Singh (deceased) through Legal Representatives Lalita Karki and others'.

(2.) A suit for mandatory injunction was instituted by the petitioner against the defendant or any party claiming through him to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the house-Durga Niwas, situated at Amphala, Jammu in Survey No. 287 min, measuring 5 Kanals 11 Marlas along with the said land to the plaintiff and the same is pending before the trial Court. The litigation between the parties continued and the original defendant Lt. Col. Dalbir Singh died on 11/10/2006 without deposing before the trial Court in his defence, his legal representatives were brought on record on 15/11/2006. An application was filed by the respondents/defendants for permitting them to examine seven witnesses in place of the list of witnesses already submitted by the respondents and also the witnesses who had already filed their evidence by way of an affidavit. The petitioner/plaintiff objected to the same on the ground that the respondents having submitted a long list of witnesses are shying away from examining them and are only trying to prolong the trial and frustrate the proceedings, as such, the same was devoid of any merit. The learned trial Court by the impugned order dtd. 6/4/2022, allowed the application of the defendants under Order XVI with cost of Rs.5,000.00 to be paid to the opposite party for inconvenience caused.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dtd. 6/4/2022, on the ground that the same is perverse and illegal as the same was passed without taking into consideration any cause much less a good cause shown by the respondent who had filed three different applications for examination and summoning the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds carved out in the application are only an afterthought to defeat and delay the trial. The trial Court, it is submitted had erroneously accepted the affidavits of two persons namely Abhimanyu Partap Singh Jamwal and Amit Dutta who were cited in as witnesses even though the application for permitting them to examine witnesses was yet to be decided, this has resulted in delay in the proceedings. It is urged that the trial Court has acted with material irregularity in allowing the application which has resulted in failure of justice, therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.