1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3555/2009. Smt.Chandrakanta. VERSUS Addl.District Judge (FT) No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur & Ors. 01.04.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Ajay Gupta, for the petitioner. ***** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 24.02.2009 by which the application submitted by the plaintiff for recalling the order by which the learned trial court directed that first the proforma defendants No.7 and 8 to lead evidence and thereafter directed that the remaining set of defendants shall be permitted to lead evidence. The said application having been dismissed, hence, this writ petition. The learned trial court has prima facie came to the conclusion that there are two sets of defendants; (1) who are claiming their rights through Puranmal Saini; and (2) others like the plaintiff who claim their rights through Kanhaiyalal. The plaintiff and the defendants No.7 and 8 are brothers. Upon the 2 appreciation of the above fact, the learned trial court directed the defendants No.7 and 8 to first lead their evidence after the plaintiff has closed its evidence and thereafter, the learned trial court has fixed the case for the evidence of the remaining set of defendants No.1 to 6. While rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, the learned trial court has taken into consideration the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Shah Hiralal Himatlal and Others Vs. M.G.Pathak and Others reported in AIR 1964 Gujarat 26 wherein the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court came to the conclusion that while Order 18 C.P.C. does prescribe the procedure or order in which the witnesses are to be examined by the court, inasmuch as first the parties are to be examined and then the remaining witnesses shall be examined but so far as which of the party is to be examined first, there is no such procedure laid down. Based upon the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner. It may be noted that while the plaintiff has 3 objected to the above procedure being adopted the defendants No.7 and 8 have not objected to the same, nor has the plaintiff been able to point out as to what prejudice is going to be caused on account of the said procedure being adopted. In the facts and circumstances, I find no good ground so as to call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.