TEJ SINGH AND ANR. Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants against the judgment & decree dated 20/11/2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer whereby suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his argument only on the aspect of closure of evidence of the defendant-appellants. It is argued that after 12/1/2009, the matter remained pending for recording of evidence of the plaintiff from 25/3/2009 to 20/5/2010 when the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded and the matter was fixed for 25/5/2010. On that day, a prayer was made by the defendant-appellants for adjournment, which was not opposed by the plaintiff and therefore matter was fixed for 10/8/2010. On that day also, defendant prayed for additional time to adduce evidence, which prayer was opposed by the plaintiff however, learned trial court granted the prayer on cost of Rs.200.00 and fixed the matter for 13/9/2010. On that day, since the presiding officer was on leave, no proceedings could be transacted and the matter was adjourned to 11/10/2010. Unfortunately on that day, as relative of the defendant died and due to bereavement he could not come to the court and in those facts defendant-appellants filed an application disclosing such facts. Trial court rejected that application on 11/10/2010 and closed the evidence and suit was decreed on 20/11/2010. Learned counsel submitted that although there has been some delay on the part of the defendant in adducing evidence but then the matter remained pending for evidence of the plaintiff for about one year & two months. In support of his submission, counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in Satyanarayan Vs. Govind Prasad : 2007(3) WLC (Raj.) 323 seeking a prayer for direction to the trial court for allow him to adduce evidence on any two dates given by the court on a reasonable amount of cost.

(3.) Prayer of the appellants is seriously and vehemently opposed by the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent and submits that defendant-appellants did not give any satisfactory explanation why they did not adduce their evidence despite number of opportunities being granted to them and they did not even pay the cost awarded by the trial court. It is not clarified as to, which of his relative died. This Court ought not to interfere with the judgment & decree of the trial court because non adducing the evidence was attributed to the negligence of the defendant-appellants.