// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1858/2009 {Shambhu Dayal Vs. The Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur and Others} Date of Order ::: 18.03.2009 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Dharmendra Pareek, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition, on behalf of the defendant-petitioner, is directed against the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2009, rejecting his application for not recording the statement of Satya Prakash, plaintiff No.2. It appears that the case was fixed in the trial court for plaintiff's evidence and, after recording the statement of the plaintiff No.1 Chandra Kanta, on 1st April, 2008 the statements of PW-2 Prahlad, PW-3 Mahadeo Prasad and PW-4 Kailash Chand were recorded, and thereafter the case was fixed for plaintiff's remaining evidence. Thereafter the plaintiffs wanted to examine plaintiff No.2 Satya Prakash. The // 2 // defendant-petitioner moved an application in writing in the trial court to the effect that after examining the statements of plaintiff's witnesses, the statement of Satya Prakash, who is the plaintiff No.2, cannot be recorded, hence his statement should not be recorded. It was also prayed that the certificate (Exhibit- 2) issued by Gram Panchayat may not be taken on the record. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence and no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendant in case the statement of plaintiff No.2 Satya Prakash is now recorded. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the trial court so as to interfere with the same while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//