Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESH KUMAR & ANR. versus CIVIL JUDGE (S.D.)

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAMESH KUMAR & ANR. v CIVIL JUDGE (S.D.)-CUM-A.C.J.M. & ORS - CW Case No. 5770 of 2004 [2005] RD-RJ 1052 (23 May 2005)

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5770/2004

Ramesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Civil Judge (SD), Pokhran and ors.

Date : 23.5.2005

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.

Mr. Sachin Acharya, for the petitioners.

Mr. RK Mehta, for the respondents.

-----

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners/plaintiffs are aggrieved against the order dated 13.9.2004 by which the trial court closed the petitioners' evidence.

It appears from the facts of the case that the petitioners' evidence began on 5.12.2003 and the evidence of P.W.1 Ramesh Kumar remained in complete because of summoning of certain record. Thereafter, one application under Order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC was filed and thereafter another application under Order 11 Rules 12 & 14 CPC was filed by the plaintiff. All these applications were decided upto 12.7.2004. Thereafter, the case was adjourned twice for the evidence of the plaintiffs and ultimately, when the plaintiffs sought further time on 13.9.2004, the court closed the evidence of the plaintiffs.

In the above facts, the petitioners should have been given one more opportunity by fixing the date even next day on payment of costs by the trial court looking to the events recorded by the trial court itself in the impugned order.

In view of the above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed, hence allowed. The impugned order dated 13.9.2004 is set aside and the petitioners are granted opportunity to produce evidence. The petitioners may be granted two dates to complete their evidence and the cross examination etc. also completes in two days but the adjournment shall not be granted to the petitioners more than twice now.

In view of the above order, the stay petition has become infructuous and as such, it is dismissed. The stay order granted by this Court on 17.12.2004 is vacated.

(PRAKASH TATIA), J.

S.Phophaliya


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.