1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1248/2008 Amritlal v. ADJ(FT)No.5,Udaipur & Ors. Date of Judgment :: 11 th March, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. R.S.Mankad, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Singhvi] Mr. R.Dave ] for the respondents. .... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 5.2.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Udaipur; the order dated 10.1.2008, passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Udaipur and the order dated 28.1.2008, passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Udaipur. The Additional District Judge by order dated 5.2.2007 closed the plaintiff's evidence except to the witnesses present in the court on 5.2.2007. By submitting an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner plaintiff sought an order to recall the earlier order and to permit him to examine the witnesses. The trial court by order dated 10.1.2008 rejected the application aforesaid. By order dated 28.1.2008 the trial court rejected the application preferred under Order XLVII 2 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 22.1.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to assail validity of the order dated 5.2.2007 closing plaintiff's evidence. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that on 5.2.2007 adequate reason was available for not producing a material witness Shri Dungar Singh as he was suffering from ailment. I have considered the argument advanced and also examined the order impugned. It is relevant to note that the suit for specific performance was filed in the year 1982 and upto 5.2.2007 even the plaintiff's evidence was not recorded. On 5.2.2007 no adequate reason was shown for not producing the evidence. In the application preferred under Order XVIII Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure it was stated that Shri Dungar Singh who was to be produced as a plaintiff's witness was suffering from a cardiac ailment and, therefore, he failed to appear before the court. From minute examination of record I found that no specific dates were given by the plaintiff about severe ailment of Shri Dungar Singh. It is nowhere stated that on the day the order impugned was passed what was condition of Shri Dungar Singh and what was the reason on the day concerned for 3 not producing him. It is also relevant to note that after 5.2.2007 for good about ten months no action was taken by the plaintiff petitioner and the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure was filed only on 18.12.2007. In totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error in the orders impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.