1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13366/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13366/2010 Ramesh Chand Vs. Additional Civil Judge(SD) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Another. Date of Order: 14.12.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Mr. Anoop Agarwal on behalf of Mr. R.K. Yadav, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Plaintiff/Respondent No. 2 Shri Sitaram Vyas filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in respect of rented premises in the trial court on the ground of personal bonafide necessity, nuisance etc. against Defendant/petitioner way back in the year 1995. Suit was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 15.07.2010. Defendant/petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC alongwith document which was allowed at the cost 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13366/2010 of Rs. 5,00/-. P.w. 1 Sitaram was present in the Court since 10.30 A.M., but learned counsel for defendant did not cross examine him up to 4.00 P.M. and thereafter moved an application for grant of time for cross-examination. Learned trial court observed that application is not bonafide, however, in the interest of justice time was granted for cross-examination at the cost of Rs. 3,000/- vide order dated 15.07.2010. Case was fixed on 11.08.2010 for cross-examination of P.W. 1-plaintiff. 3. On 11.08.2010, defendant moved an application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which was dismissed by trial court vide order dated 13.08.2010. Being aggrieved with aforesaid two orders dated 13.08.2010 and 15.07.2010, defendant-petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned trial court committed an illegality in granting time to defendant for cross-examination of plaintiff at the cost of Rs. 3000/-, said order should have been reviewed, but review application of the petitioner-defendant was also dismissed 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13366/2010 illegally by learned trial court vide order dated 13.08.2010. However, during the course of arguments learned counsel for defendant/petitioner submitted that right of cross-examination of plaintiff is an important right of defendant, therefore, the petitioner- defendant is ready to pay higher amount of cost, but he should be allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands) in place of Rs. 3000/-, cost imposed by trial court, but the petitioner may be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff, as present suit is a suit for eviction. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for granting time for cross-examination of plaintiff at the cost of Rs. 3,000/-. Reasons assigned by trial court appear to be absolutely justified and no interference in the said order is called for. 6. It is a matter of eviction, which is pending for last more than 15 years. Plaintiff was present in the court since 10.30 A.M., but neither he was cross-examined nor any 4 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13366/2010 adjournment was sought till 4.00 P.M. and only at 4.00 P.M., an application was moved by the defendant to grant time for cross-examination of plaintiff. In these circumstances, I find that learned trial court was absolutely justified in granting time by imposing cost on the defendant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed before this Court that the petitioner will pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as cost to the plaintiff for cross-examination of the plaintiff. 8. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it fit and proper that ends of justice will meet in case defendant/petitioner is directed to cross- examine the plaintiff on the next date with clear understanding that no further opportunity will be sought by the petitioner for cross- examination of the plaintiff. 9. In these circumstances, without issuing notice to the respondents, I dispose off this writ petition with a direction to the trial court to allow the defendant/petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff on the next date fixed in the trial court. In case plaintiff is 5 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13366/2010 not available for cross-examination on the next date, then trial court shall fix next date of one week for his cross examination. However, it is made clear that in case, the petitioner/defendant fails to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousands) to the plaintiff-respondent, then he will not be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff and no further opportunity in this regard will be granted to him. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition is disposed off. 11. Since writ petition has been disposed off without issuing notice to opposite party, therefore, a liberty is granted to the plaintiff/Respondent No. 2 Shri Sitaram Vyas to file an application for modification of this order, in case he feels aggrieved by it. 12. A copy of this order be sent for information and compliance to Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur immediately. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj, Item No.S.4.