PANNA LAL SHARMA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dt. 17.7.2013 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Magistrate has closed the petitioner's evidence; the petitioner has also challenged the order dt. 4.10.2013 passed by the said learned Magistrate, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for reopening of the evidence has also been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging therein that in field bearing khasra No. 39 situated at Mojasisi Maharaj Gopalpura @ Chak Sundarka Bass, Tehsil Sawai Jaipur, District Jaipur, there was a bara, owned and possessed by its khatedar, late Nand Lal. It was alleged that said Nand Lal was the plaintiff's brother. He had bequeathed this property to the plaintiff. Later on a document was also executed on 31.3.1973. It was alleged that the petitioner is in possession of this land since 1950. Electric and water connections have also been obtained by the petitioner in his name. A house was also constructed by the petitioner on the said land. The land building tax is also being paid by the petitioner. The house was assigned Municipal No. 173, and the petitioner is paying entire house tax and building tax etc. since 1975. But the Municipal Council, Jaipur was trying to interrupt the petitioner's peaceful possession. It is bent upon to demolish the house. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed the present suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.

(2.) THE defendant, the Municipal Council filed reply; according to it, the land is seevai chak, and is vested with the Municipal Council. As such, they are owners of the property in dispute. However, they have admitted the possession of petitioner. Although they have denied installation of water and electric connections. They have admitted that the house tax has been deposited for a long time.

(3.) MR . M.M. Ranjan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the learned Magistrate is unjustified in claiming that thirteen opportunities were given to the petitioner for submitting his evidence. Since Om Prakash Sharma, the petitioner No. 1/2, had filed his affidavit on 17.8.2012, merely few opportunities were given to produce his evidence. Moreover, his cross -examination could not be completed till 17.7.2013. But on the same date the petitioner's evidence was closed. According to the learned counsel, two more witnesses still need to be examined on behalf of the petitioner, namely Mahadev Prasad and Govind Ram Saini. Further, if the petitioner is not permitted to examine these two witnesses, he would not be in a position to establish his case against the respondent -defendants. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed that a last opportunity should be given to the petitioner to examine the two witnesses named above.