GAJANAND Vs. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners-plaintiffs have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 31.1.2012, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur closed the evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jaipur District, Jaipur with regard to a double storied house situated in Village Bhanpur Kalan, which had been in their continuous possession for the last 100 years since the time of their ancestors. It is alleged that the property of defendants no. 1 and 2 Shri Ram Sahai, who was Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat, Bhanpur Kalan in collusion with the defendants no. 1 and 2 issued a patta of the said house in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2 on 20th March, 2003. Apprehensive of the fact that the defendants will oust them, they filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction imploring the Court that the defendants no. 1 and 2 may be restrained from not taking possession of the house of the petitioners-plaintiffs perforce. Having obtained the written statement of the defendants, the learned trial court settled the issues and fixed the case for recording the statement of the plaintiffs. Ample opportunity was given to the plaintiffs for producing the evidence, but the plaintiffs did not produce the evidence in support of their case and implored for further adjournment with a view to procrastinate the trial of the suit. Finally the learned trial court closed the evidence on 21.12.2011. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 18 Rule 2 readwith Section 151 CPC praying that the evidence was closed on the last date of hearing, but in the interest of justice, the plaintiffs may be granted one and the last opportunity to produce evidence in support of their case. The learned trial court dismissed this application also on 31st January, 2012. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the pettioners and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order.