IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2092 of 2004. Murari Lal son of Shri Vinodi Lal. VERSUS Civil Judge (J.D.) Bansur, Alwar & Another Date Of Order ::: 10/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Ravi Shankar Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manu Bhargava, Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The defendant/petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bansur, District Alwar, whereby the evidence of the defendant was closed and the case was fixed for final arguments. The plaintiff/respondent no.2 (Mahesh Chand) filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent in the trial Court against the defendant/petitioner, which was fixed for defendant's evidence in the trial Court on 23.03.2004. The defendant filed an application to summon some witnesses to be examined on his behalf. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide its impugned order dated 23.03.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 03.02.2004 the application filed by the defendant under Order 14 Rule 5, C.P.C. was allowed at the costs of Rs.150/-, and the case was fixed for defendant's evidence on 04.03.2004. The case was again adjourned for defendant's evidence on 04.03.2004 to 23.03.2004. He, therefore, contended that the trial Court wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that it was fifth opportunity to the defendant to examine its witnesses. He, therefore, contended that the defendant be allowed to lead his evidence. He further submits that he is prepared to examine his all witnesses on one day and he himself will produce the witnesses in the trial Court. He is also ready to pay the costs for the delay took place in the case. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents contested the writ petition and contended that before filing an application under Order 14 Rule 5, C.P.C., opportunities were given to the defendant to lead its evidence, but the defendant did not examine any witness. The case was fixed on 04.03.2004 and a last opportunity was given to the defendant to examine its witnesses on 23.03.2004. He further contended that the defendant did not mention the name of any witness in the application to whom he wants to summon, as its witness, therefore, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Although, the order dated 03.02.2004 has not been placed on the record as Annexure with the writ petition nor the said fact has been referred to in the writ petition, but a certified copy of the order dated 03.02.2004 was referred during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the presence of the learned counsel for the non- petitioners. It is correct that on 03.02.2004 an application under Order 14 Rule 5, C.P.C. was allowed and the case was fixed for defendant's evidence on 04.03.2004. It is also correct that on 04.03.2004 no witness was examined and a last opportunity was given to the defendant to examine its witnesses on 23.03.2004. The certified copies of the order-sheets further reveal that the case was fixed for defendant's evidence on dated 11.12.2003, 05.01.2004 and 03.02.2004 respectively, when an application under Order 14 Rule 5, C.P.C. was filed, therefore, the trial Court was right in writing that five opportunities have been given to the defendants to examine its witnesses. The petitioner is a tenant and he is interested in delaying the eviction suit filed against him. The application filed by the defendant to summon its witness was not bona-fide and the trial Court was right in rejecting the same. The order passed by the trial Court appears to be legal and justified. However, in the interest of justice, I grant one last more opportunity to the defendant to examine its all witnesses on one day at his own on payment of costs of Rs.3000/-. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The defendant/petitioner is permitted to examine its all witnesses in the trial Court on 22.04.2008. It will be a duty of the defendant to produce his all the witnesses at his own and will not make any request to the trial Court to summon them. The defendant will pay the costs of Rs.3000/- to the plaintiff before examining the witnesses. It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not produced and examined on the next date i.e. 22.04.2008 and the payment of costs is not paid to the plaintiff, then the trial Court will not afford any more opportunity to the defendant to lead its evidence in the case and will hear and dispose of the case finally. There will be no order as to costs so far as this writ petition is concerned. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/