BHAIRURAM Vs. GOPAL GURJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assail the legality and validity of the order dtd. 6/11/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for brevity, 'the learned trial Court') whereby, two applications filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for brevity, 'plaintiff') under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC as also for reopening his rebuttal evidence, have been allowed.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit in October, 2010 for specific performance of the agreement dtd. 28/6/1997 and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants (for brevity, 'defendants'). The defendants in their written statement filed in the year, 2011, denied execution of the agreement to sell dtd. 28/6/1997 in plaintiff's favour. After closure of the evidence of the parties including the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed two applications as stated hereinabove which have been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dtd. 6/11/2019, the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite recording a categorical finding that application filed by the plaintiff for reopening his rebuttal evidence could not be allowed as he wants to introduce new document in its garb, both the applications have been allowed by the learned trial Court. He submits that the plaintiff could not have been permitted to reopen the case when it was already fixed for final arguments in the garb of exhibiting the report by the handwriting expert, which was an opinion only. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dtd. 6/11/2019 be quashed and set aside.