VIJAY KUMAR Vs. SMT MAYA DEVI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Behror, camp Bansoor, whereby the learned Judge has closed the petitioner's evidence.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of contract against the respondent-defendants with regard to a land situated in Village Khohari Tehsil Bansoor (Alwar). Issues were framed by the trial court and the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. However, after giving certain opportunities to produce his witnesses, the learned Judge closed petitioner's evidence by order dated 27.4.2012. Hence this petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that out of seven dates given to the petitioner, on two dates the Presiding Officer himself was absent from the court. Merely three opportunities have been given to the petitioner, and on the fourth occasion his evidence has been closed. Secondly, the learned Judge has taken a hyper-technical view, and has ignored the basic principle that a party must be given sufficient opportunities to establish his/her case through oral and documentary evidence. By closing his evidence in hot haste the petitioner as the plaintiff, has been deprived of his right to establish his case. Since the case relates to a declaration, permanent injunction and a specific performance, it was imperative to give the petitioner ample opportunities to examine his witnesses. However, the learned Judge has failed to do so. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be interfered with.