S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14692/2010 Sanwla Vs. Hari Kishan and Anr. Dated : 01.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner *** By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner-defendant has beseeched to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28th July, 2010 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Rajgarh, District Alwar closed the evidence of petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that albeit he was given opportunity to produce the evidence five times, but the petitioner could not adduce the evidence as some close relative in his family had died. The petitioner is an old man of the age of 65 years. Hence, in the interest of justice, he may be given only one opportunity to produce the evidence so that he may seek justice. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the impugned order dated 28th July, 2010 whereby the learned Civil Judge closed the evidence of the -2- petitioner runs only in five lines. Only one fact is mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity and there was no reason to give any other opportunity to produce the evidence. A bare perusal of the order-sheets running w.e.f 26th May, 2004 till 28th July, 2010, reveal that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 26th May, 2004 and the case was adjourned to 26th August, 2004 for recording the evidence of defendant-petitioner. On 26th August, 2004, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 8 Rule 3(1) of CPC. This application remained pending for its disposal till 18th March, 2009. The learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) took almost five years to dispose of this application. On many of the dates of hearing, either the Presiding Officer was on leave or the work was suspended by the learned Advocates. After 18th March, 2009, the case was adjourned five times for the evidence of the defendant to be recorded. On 8th December, 2009, the Presiding Officer was on leave. Prior to that on 11th July, 2009 the Advocates struck the Court work. On 19th March, 2010, the petitioner was granted last opportunity and thereafter the evidence was closed. When the learned trial Court could take five years to dispose of one petty application which ought to have been decided on the same day, there was no -3- justification for him to close the evidence only after granting two opportunities, as on three dates, either the Presiding officer was on leave or the Advocates had struck the work. The impugned order is found to be totally nebulous, non-speaking, arbitrary and capricious, which deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28th July, 2010 stands quashed and set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to produce the evidence in support of his case, in the interest of justice. 6. The defendant-petitioner should appear before the Court on 24th November, 2010. On that day, he should take all the witnesses, which he wants to examine in support of his case before the trial Court. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg item no.14.