SURAJ DEVI Vs. VIMLA DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The defendant no.1/petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 16th December, 2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby evidence of defendant has been closed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that plaintiff-respondent took about two years in leading his evidence in support of her case and the same was closed on 20th October, 2008 and thereafter the case was fixed for defendants' evidence on 20th November, 2008, which was the first date for defendants' evidence and on the same day, the evidence of defendants was closed. He contended that thereafter an application was moved in the trial court itself to reopen evidence of the defendants but the said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 16th December, 2008. He contended that looking to the controversy involved in the present case, it is necessary for the defendants to lead evidence, otherwise they will suffer irreparable loss.