BANNE SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 15-2-2010, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & Judicial Magistrate First Class, No. 1, Jaipur City Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 234/2009, whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to re-open the evidence of petitioner-plaintiff, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court.

(2.) According to the petitioner-plaintiff, he filed an affidavit on 22-9-2009. After filing of the affidavit due to his illness, the plaintiff could not attend the trial court on 27-11-2009. Thus, the case was adjourned to 6-1-2010. However, on 6-1-2010 also due to some personal work again the plaintiff could not remain present in the court. Although the time was sought on behalf of the plaintiff, but the learned Magistrate closed the evidence of plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved an application for re-opening of his evidence. However, vide order dated 15-2-2010 the said application was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. O.P. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that since it is a settled principle that justice should not only be done, but it should appear to have been done. Therefore, ample opportunity should be given to the petitioner to establish his case. It is not the case that the plaintiff has been absenting himself from the court by choice, but he has been unable to attend the court due to personal necessity. Therefore, the court should have been generous enough to permit the plaintiff to substantiate his case.