CHIRANJI LAL Vs. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DIVISION) AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ROOPBAS, DISTRICT BHARATPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.07.2010, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Roopbas, District Bharatpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 31.11.1982 before the learned trial court against the original defendant Gopali and the defendant-respondent No.7, Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Roopbas. The original defendant, Gopali filed his written statement to the plaint and denied the contents of the plaint. Thereafter, the defendants sought adjournments on many occasions. In the meantime, the original defendant, Gopali expired and his legal representatives were taken on record. On 09.02.2009, the affidavits of the witnesses namely, PW-1, Chiranji, PW-2, Gopal and PW-3, Suresh were filed and copies of the same were given to the counsel for the defendant-respondents. The counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondents sought time for cross-examining the witnesses produced by the plaintiff-petitioner and the case was fixed for 06.04.2009. But, on 06.04.2009, the witnesses could not be examined as the Presiding Officer was on leave. Thereafter, on 16.09.2009 the case was fixed, but the plaintiff-petitioner sought time for producing the witnesses. The learned trial court granted one opportunity at the cost of Rs.250.00 and the case was fixed for 28.10.2009. On 28.10.2009, the learned trial court closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner and fixed the case on 29.10.2009 for the evidence of the defendant-respondents. Aggrieved by the said order 28.10.2009, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14415/2009. However, vide order dated 29th March, 2010, this Court allowed the petition and granted a last opportunity to the petitioner for producing the remaining witnesses for cross-examination on the next date which was fixed by the learned trial court at the cost of Rs.1,000.00. On the next dates i.e., 21.04.2010 and 03.05.2010, the petitioner did not produce the witnesses for cross-examination as the Presiding Officer was on leave. Thereafter, on 29.05.2010, since the petitioner was suffering from fever, he could not appear before the learned trial court. However, vide order dated 07.07.2010, the learned trial court has closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) A bare perusal of the facts narrated above clearly reveals that this Court had granted last opportunity to the petitioner to produce his remaining witnesses for cross-examination, and that too after imposing a cost of Rs.1,000.00 Despite the said direction of this Court, the petitioner had failed to produce his witnesses on 29.05.2010. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the petitioner was suffering from fever, he could not attend the court. However, the medical certificate produced by him (Annex-5) is a medical certificate issued by an Ayurvedic Doctor. It is rather surprising that a person who is suffering from fever has gotten a Ayurvedic Doctor's Certificate. Therefore, the said medical certificate does not appear to be a genuine one. Since ample opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce his witnesses for cross-examination, this Court does not find any perversity or any illegality in the impugned order dated 07.07.2010.