SATPAL SINGH Vs. PYAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners-original defendants challenging the order dated 3.8.09 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate (JD) No.3, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit NO. 332/95, whereby the trial court has partly allowed the application of the petitioner for reopening the evidence of the petitioners-defendants.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the original respondent No.1 Pyar Singh had filed the suit against the present petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (original defendants) seeking specific performance of the agreement in question. In the said suit, the petitioners filed their appearance through their counsel. Thereafter the respondent-plaintiff laid his evidence by examining the witnesses who were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It further appears that the petitioners had also examined one witness DW-1, whose cross-examination was completed on 26.8.06. Thereafter the suit was adjourned from time to time for the examination of the other witnesses of the petitioners-defendants. In the meantime the original-plaintiff expired and his only heir was brought on record. From the order-sheets produced by the petitioners it appears that again the matter was adjourned from time to time, for one reason or the other. When it was fixed on 29.5.09, neither the petitioners-defendants nor their counsel remained present in the court and, therefore the court passed the order that the proceedings shall be proceeded exparte and the final arguments shall be heard on 8.7.09. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application on 8.7.09 for setting aside the order dated 29.5.09 under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. The trial court vide order dated 3.8.09 partly allowed the said application by setting aside the order dated 29.5.09, however directed that since the evidence for the defendants was already closed, the final arguments shall be heard on 3.8.09. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) AS against that, the learned counsel Mr. Mohit Gupta for respondent NO. 1/1 submitted that the suit is pending since 1984 and was adjourned from time to time because the petitioners did not examine their witnesses. According to him the trial court having passed the order which is legal and proper, it does not call for interference.