PRAHLAD SINGH Vs. NAND KISHORE SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) PLAINTIFF -petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of the contract in the trial court, wherein the plaintiffs' evidence was closed on 20th May, 2004 and the case was fixed for defendant's evidence on 15th July, 2004. The plaintiffs moved an application on 2nd June, 2004 itself stating therein that their evidence has been closed on 20th May, 2004 after recording the statements of Prahlad Singh and Puran Saini, but they also wanted to examine Virender Badhwar, Notary Public, and Prahlad Singh, Stamp Vendor, who are material and relevant witnesses in the present case, therefore, they may be permitted to examine them.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that it was a suit for specific performance of the contract wherein examination of Notary Public and Stamp Vendor relating to disputed agreement was necessary but their evidence was wrongly closed on 20th May, 2004. It was further contended that there was no delay on the part of the petitioners as the evidence was closed on 20th May, 2004 and case was fixed for defendant's evidence on 15th July, 2004, but, without waiting for next date, an application was moved on their behalf on 2nd June, 2004 itself which should have been allowed by the trial court. The learned Counsel for the defendant contended that from the order -sheet dated 21st April, 2004 it is clear that five opportunities had already been granted earlier to the plaintiffs and last opportunity was given to the plaintiffs for examination of their witnesses. On 20th May, 2004 the cross -examination of PW -1 Prahlad Singh and PW -2 Puran Saini was complete and it was plaintiffs' counsel, who closed their evidence, therefore, the learned trial court was right in rejecting the application and no interference should be made in the said order by this Court. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties in the light of impugned orders passed by the trial court dated 20th May, 2004 as well as 9th September, 2004. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract and plaintiffs wanted to examine Virendra Badhwar, Notary Public, and Prahlad Singh, Stamp Vendor, in support of their case. Looking to the nature of controversy, I find that the statement of both the witnesses was necessary. So far as the impugned order passed by the trial court is concerned, I find that the trial court had already granted sufficient opportunities to the petitioners and no illegality has been committed by it in rejecting their application but looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of controversy involved in the present matter, I think it fit and proper that ends of justice will meet in case one more opportunity is granted to the plaintiffs to adduce their both witnesses, namely, Virender Badhwar, Notary Public, and Prahlad Singh, Stamp Vendor, at their own, without moving any further application before the trial court to summon them and the defendant can be compensated by way of costs. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The plaintiff petitioners are allowed to examine their both witnesses, namely, Virender Badhwar, Notary Public, and Prahlad Singh, Stamp Vendor, in the trial court on 17th April, 2008 on payment of costs of Rs. 3000/ - (Rupees three thousand only), which will be paid by the plaintiffs to defendant before examining the said witnesses in the trial court.