SURENDRA KUMAR BARADIYA Vs. ANIL KUMAR GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") in civil suit No.64/2011 whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for re-opening his evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that petitioner had been granted ample opportunities to produce the evidence but he could not lead evidence. However, learned counsel prays for one and the last opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the prayer and contended that ample opportunities were granted to the petitioner to produce evidence but he failed to do so. Resultantly his evidence was closed vide order dated 05.12.2019 and application for reopening his evidence was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2019. This shows that the petitioner is not at all interested to lead evidence rather his sole object is to delay the pending proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order 17.12.2019 with other documents annexed with the writ petition. No doubt that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner to adduce his evidence but he had failed to do so, therefore, the trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order. Be that as it may, denial to adduce evidence may cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is in the interest of justice that one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner to lead his evidence.