RAJUDI Vs. PAPPU PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is being preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming following reliefs:-

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Jodhpur (hereinafter as 'learned trial court'), claiming that Plot No. 2, Pancholiyo Ki Nadi, Harijan Basti, Jodhpur was allotted by the UIT, Jodhpur to her maternal grandmother, Smt. Uni, based on long-standing possession. The petitioner, along with her parents, resided with Smt. Uni and continued to live in the property after her demise. Smt. Uni executed a Will on 2/2/1994. The Will divided the property equally: the western half was bequeathed to the petitioner, while the remaining half was willed to the respondent. On 8/11/2013, the respondent allegedly threatened to forcibly evict her within a week if she did not vacate the property. The respondent, in his written statement, claimed that the petitioner is a widow residing elsewhere and that he and his family have been in possession of Plot No. 2. Based on the parties' pleadings, the trial court framed four issues on 24/1/2015 to adjudicate the matter. The petitioner submitted her affidavit in evidence but was unable to appear for crossexamination. Consequently, the trial court closed her evidence vide order dtd. 29/11/2017 (Annex.6). Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application dtd. 6/9/2019 (Annex.7) to recall the order dtd. 29/11/2017 (Annex.6) whereby her evidence was closed. The respondent opposed the application, while arguing that it was filed after an inordinate delay of two years with intention to cause delay in the proceedings. The learned trial court vide order dtd. 23/11/2022 (Annex.9) dismissed the petitioner's application to reopen the evidence while imposing a cost of Rs.500.00. Aggrieved by the same the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition submits that the learned trial court erred by closing petitioner's evidence as the petitioner was critically ill as she was having tuberculosis thus, rendering her unable to attend court proceedings. He also submits that despite the petitioner's continuous appearance before the learned trial court and submission of her examination-in-chief affidavit, the learned trial court closed the petitioner's evidence on the grounds that multiple opportunities had been given to lead evidence.