1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3348 of 2005. Ramotar & Others Vs. Additional District Judge (F.T.), Sikar & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3348 of 2005. Ramotar son of late Shri Laxmi Narayan & Others VERSUS Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Sikar and Others Date of Judgment :::: 12/08/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. R.K. Mathur } Mr. Peush Nag, Counsel for Petitioners Mr. Vigyan Shah, Counsel for the Respondents Per Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 20.04.2005, the learned trial Court had closed the right of the defendants to lead evidence. The case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants on 20.04.2005. On the said date, the counsel for the defendant was unwell and admitted to the Hospital in Bombay as is sought to be contended on the basis of the documents filed, along with this petition. 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3348 of 2005. Ramotar & Others Vs. Additional District Judge (F.T.), Sikar & Others The learned trial Court refused the prayer of the defendants made vide application (Annexure-1) for an adjournment on the ground of the illness of the counsel, taking into consideration the past conduct of the defendants and the adjournments, which were sought by the defendants for leading evidence in the past. I am of the view that so far as the past conduct of the defendants is concerned, it may have been relevant, but the same was wrongly taken into account for refusing the prayer for adjournment on 20.04.2005 on the ground of the illness of the counsel, who was admitted in the Hospital at Bombay and in support of which the necessary documents had already been produced before the learned Court below. The Court was required to consider whether there was sufficient cause for adjourning the case on 20.04.2005 and not the conduct of the defendants of previous dates alone. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has on the other hand contended that the opportunity, if at all not is to be granted to the defendants to lead evidence, should be granted on the payment of the costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I deem it just and proper to allow this petition, set aside the impugned order with the direction to the learned trial Court to permit the defendant-petitioners to examine their remaining witnesses on the payment of the costs of Rs.2000/-. The defendant shall file the affidavits of all the remaining witnesses 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3348 of 2005. Ramotar & Others Vs. Additional District Judge (F.T.), Sikar & Others before the learned trial Court and shall bring all the witnesses without assistance from the Court. Subject to the above, the writ petition as well as the stay application stand disposed of. (Dalip Singh) J. ashok/