BALLARAM Vs. VAIDH PUSHKARDUTT JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 4.3.2006 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.2, Sikar, whereby the learned judge had closed the right to file the written statement of the petitioner-defendants.

(2.) Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that immediately after the temporary injunction application was rejected by the learned trial court, the respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in 2001 itself. Thereafter the record of the case was called for by the First Appellate Court, which was not returned to the learned trial court till 29.1.2006. Therefore, for five years the written statement could not be filed by the petitioners. According to order dated 28.1.2006 only a last chance was granted to the petitioners to file their written statement by the next date, i.e. by 4.3.2006. Thus, according to the learned counsel ample opportunities were not given to the petitioners to file the written statement. Thus, their right to defend themselves has been denied by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) On the other hand Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, the learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently contended that even if the record has been called for by the First Appellate Court, it did not prevent the petitioners from filing the written statement as a formal file is maintained by the learned trial court, and endless order-sheets were recorded. Thus according to him, ample opportunities have been given to the petitioners to submit their written statement. Thus, he has supported the impugned order.