HARICHARAN SINGH Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 8.6.2009, passed by learned Sub Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 494 of 1980 for recalling the order dated 17.4.2009, by which evidence of plaintiff has been closed and also order dated 8.6.2009 , by which the prayer for recalling that order has been rejected. 3. Plaintiff-petitioner filed this suit in the year 1980. In spite of sufficient opportunity, he did not conclude his evidence. However, on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-, the learned court below allowed him to adduce evidence. Even against such order, petitioner filed writ petition being WPC No. 1720 of 2007, which was disposed of on 11.4.2007 by passing the following order. Mr. Laljee Sahay, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the time granted by the court below by order dated 19.2.2007 may be extended by three weeks from today. Mr. Mishra, appearing for other side, submitted that in view of delaying tactics of the petitioner in this suit of the year 1980, the court below directed the petitioner to file all affidavited examination-in chief of the witnesses on the next date i.e. 12.3.2007. He further submitted that even after the said order was passed on 19.2.2007 about two months have passed. It is also not known whether petitioner has deposited the cost awarded by the court below or not. In the circumstances, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 19.2.2007, by 2nd May, 2007. This order is subject to payment of a further cost of Rs.2,000/- ( Two thousand) by the petitioner to the respondents apart from the cost awarded by the lower court. The cost is to be paid to the respondents in the lower court.

(3.) It appears from the impugned order that petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to adduce and conclude his evidence but he failed to do so and ultimately the evidences were closed by order dated 17.4.2009. Thereafter, defendants also adduced evidence and at that stage a petition was filed for allowing the petitioner to adduce further evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.