1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JJDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7645 of 2006. Bhudev Prasad Sharma son of Shri Shankar Lal Sharma Versus The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bari, District Dholpur and Another Date of Order :::: 30/07/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner Per Court : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record as well as the impugned order, (Annexure-6), by which the application submitted by the plaintiff-petitioner on 14.09.2006 for recalling the order dated 20.04.2006 and affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead the evidence has been rejected. The application, which was filed by the plaintiff is on record as Annexure-5. In the application, it has been 2 submitted that 20th of April 2006 was the date fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff and it was brought to the notice of the Court that the parties were intending to compromise the matter, despite which in the absence of the witness of the plaintiff the learned trial Court closed the right of the plaintiff to lead the evidence. The case was fixed for placing the compromise on record on 25.05.2006. On 25.05.2006 also the compromise could not be filed and the case was adjourned to 14.09.2006. On 14.09.2006 the learned trial Court inquired whether the parties had compromised the matter and on being informed that the compromise has not taken place the case was posted for the defendants evidence on 04.10.2006. At this stage, on 14.09.2006 itself the present application (Annexure-5) was filed by the plaintiff stating therein that the plaintiff was under impression that in view of the compromise talks the case has been adjourned, whereas the plaintiff came to know later-on that vide order dated 20.04.2006 the right of the plaintiff to lead further evidence had been closed. 3 In these circumstances, the plaintiff-petitioner prayed that the order dated 20.04.2006 be recalled and the plaintiff be permitted to lead further evidence. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, vide order dated 20.10.2006 issued notices after admitting the writ petition to the respondents and also stayed the proceedings before the learned trial Court. Despite notices having been served, the respondent Lakkhi Ram has chosen not to appear before this Court. It appears from the proceedings, which have been filed as Annexure-6 on record that some talks for compromise were going-on and, therefore, on 20.04.2006 the plaintiffs witnesses were not present and an opportunity was sought by the plaintiff for adjournment of the case for negotiating the the compromise. It seems, however, that while the Court adjourned the case for placing the compromise on record, simultaneously the learned trial Court also passed an order closing the right of the plaintiff to lead further evidence. 4 In the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned in the application (Annexure-5) and after perusing the order-sheets (Annexure-6) on record, it does appear that there seems to have been some misunderstanding while recording the order dated 20.04.2006 as the plaintiff sought an adjournment for negotiating a compromise, which was allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, with a view to afford the parties to litigate the matter on merits, I am inclined to accept this petition and afford one more opportunity to the plaintiff to bring all his witnesses before the Court on the next date by filing their affidavits with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the defendant. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 20.04.2006 and 14.09.2006 are set aside and it is directed that the learned trial Court would permit the petitioner-plaintiff to place the affidavits of all his witnesses on record and allow the cross-examination of the witnesses by the defendant. (Dalip Singh) J. ashok/