SBCWP No.422/2009 Bhanwar Lal & Anr. Vs. Saraswati 1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.422/2009 Bhanwar Lal & Anr. Vs. Saraswati DATE OF ORDER : - 21.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.MA Saddiqui, for the petitioners. Mr.Ashok Patel, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.1.2009 by which the petitioner's-defendant's evidence has been closed by the trial court in Civil Original Suit No.6/2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted by the order of this Court passed in SBCWP No.4781/2002 dated 10.8.2007, the petitioner-defendant was granted indulgence and opportunity was given to him to give his evidence in the trial court. On the due date, no evidence was produced by the defendant. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had no knowledge of the order passed by this Court and, therefore, he could not appear. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the case was transferred SBCWP No.422/2009 Bhanwar Lal & Anr. Vs. Saraswati 2 to another court on 8.8.2007, but because of the inability of the Presiding officer of the court in hearing the case, the proceedings were not taken in that transferee court and ultimately, the suit was transferred to yet another court on 29th May, 2008. On 10th July, 2008, the petitioner submitted an application under Order 17 Rule 14 CPC, which too was rejected by the trial court, against which, the writ petition was preferred by the petitioner and the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court and thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the order of the High Court by preferring the special appeal before the Division Bench and that special appeal is pending before this Court. It is submitted that ultimately on 3.1.2009, the petitioner paid cost of Rs.3,000/- imposed by the High Court in SBCWP No.4781/2002 and because of the paucity of time for preparing the affidavit of the defendant, the defendant could not submit the affidavit in evidence. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in totality of the facts of the case, when the appeal is pending before this Court against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court SBCWP No.422/2009 Bhanwar Lal & Anr. Vs. Saraswati 3 passed in writ petition preferred against the trial court's order and sine the cost has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent-plaintiff, therefore, he may be given opportunity to produce evidence. The first contention of petitioner that he had no knowledge of the order passed by the High Court and, therefore, he did not appear or could not appear before the trial court itself shows that he was grossly negligent and the facts referred in the order impugned clearly shows that it was not a case of mere inadvertence or slight negligence, but it was a case of gross negligence of the petitioner in conducting his case in spite of the indulgence of this Court allowing him to give his evidence. The conduct of the petitioner on relevant date also speaks loudly against the petitioner and, therefore, the trial court rightly passed the order dated 5.1.2009 and closed the evidence of the defendant. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the conduct of the petitioner after payment of the cost was also not of such nature on the basis of which any relief could have been granted by the trial court. SBCWP No.422/2009 Bhanwar Lal & Anr. Vs. Saraswati 4 In view of the above reasons, this frivolous writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-