ISLAMUDDIN Vs. HANUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kotputli, District Jaipur, the petitioner has approached this court. By the said order the learned Magistrate has closed the petitioner's right to produce his evidence.

(2.) Ms. Rashmi Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that from 5.11.2012 till the impugned order many a times the petitioner could not produce his witnesses as either the Presiding Officer himself was on leave, or the learned members of the Bar were abstaining from work. According to her, only three chances were given to the petitioner to produce his witnesses. Moreover, in case the petitioner is not permitted to submit his evidence, he would be deprived of the right to defend his interest and rights. Thus according to her, not only the impugned order dated 25.3.2014 deserves to be set aside, but a last opportunity should be given to the petitioner to produce his witnesses.

(3.) On the other hand Mr. M.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that from 5.11.2012 till the passing of the impugned order about fifteen chances were given to the petitioner to produce his witnesses. Even on those days when the Presiding Officer was either on leave, or the learned members of the Bar were on strike, even then, the petitioner did not produce his witnesses. In case his witnesses were present in the court, their presence would have been marked in the order-sheet. Secondly, on 24.8.2013 a cost of Rs.500/- was imposed upon the petitioner, and he was granted a right to produce his evidence. But, despite being imposed with cost, the petitioner still did not produce his witnesses. Thirdly, even by order dated 18.2.2014 again the petitioner was imposed with a cost of Rs.1000/-. Even then, he did not produce his witnesses. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the learned Magistrate had shown sufficient patience with the petitioner and had given him ample opportunities to produce his witnesses. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.