1 37 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.940/2007. Rajendra Kumar Verma Vs. ADJ No.1, Jodhpur & Anr. Date of Order :: 28th April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Vinay Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. Jitendra Gehlot for the respondent No.2. ..... BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been preferred against the orders dated 08.01.2007 and 05.02.2007 as passed by the learned Trial Court closing down the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner and refusing to reopen the same on his application. A notice was issued in this matter on 22.02.2007 and by way of interim order this Court permitted recording of evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner with terms and conditions. The order dated 22.02.2007 reads as under:- “Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application. Meanwhile, if the petitioner keeps present the deponents of the affidavits produced on behalf of the petitioner on 15.1.2007, and pays a cost of Rs. 5000/-, the learned trial court shall allow the defendants to cross-examine the deponent. If for any reason of the Court, the cross-examination is not possible to be recorded, then the attendance of the witnesses shall be recorded, and they shall be bound down to appear on the next date to be fixed by the learned trial court. It is also clarified that if the petitioner fails to deposit the cost or to produce the deponents before the learned trial court on the next date being 26.2.2007, the impugned order shall revive and the writ petition will stand dismissed. It is also 2 clarified that if despite the petitioner complying with the aforesaid direction, the defendant has any objection in cross-examining the deponents, then the further proceedings in the trial court shall remain stayed.” It is informed by learned counsel for the parties that in pursuance of the order aforesaid, the petitioner has made payment of costs and cross-examination of his witnesses has been carried out and the matter is now proceeding in evidence of the defendants. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it would have been proper for the Trial Court if an opportunity of leading evidence was given to the petitioner instead of closing the same. In any case, in view of the order passed by this Court on 22.02.2007 the evidence of the petitioner having already been recorded, it appears appropriate to set aside the impugned orders dated 08.01.2007 and 05.02.2007 and to allow this writ petition in terms of the order dated 22.02.2007. Accordingly, while making the order dated 22.02.2007 absolute and clarifying that the evidence recorded in its terms shall form part of the record and the learned Trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law, this writ petition is allowed. No further order as to costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/