SBCWP No.5504/2008 Mohan Lal Vs. Darga Ram & Anr. 1 SBCWP No.5504/2008 Mohan Lal Vs. Darga Ram & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 16.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Surendra Surana, for the petitioner. Mr.JP Bhardwaj, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parities. It appears from the order-sheet dated 17th May, 2008 that affidavit of Mafat Lal was filed, which was taken on record by the trial court and case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff obviously and may be for cross-examination of the said witness Mafat Lal. Learned counsel for the parties pointed out that Mafat lal is legal representative of plaintiff no.2. He himself has not preferred this writ petition nor has been impleaded as party by the petitioner Mohan Lal, who is one of the plaintiff. Be it as it may be, Mafat Lal could have been a witnesses for himself as legal representative of Bhura Ram SBCWP No.5504/2008 Mohan Lal Vs. Darga Ram & Anr. 2 after becoming party in the suit and could have been the witness of plaintiff no.1 and both makes no difference. The relief in the present case has been sought against the defendants because the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and defendants alone can resist the prayer for reopening of the evidence of the plaintiff. Therefore, not impleading the other plaintiff's legal representative by the petitioner-plaintiff in the writ petition in the facts of the case are not fatal. The plaintiff's affidavit was submitted only on 17th May, 2008 and case was fixed on 19th May, 2008 for cross- examination of the said witness and on that day, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. The plaintiff's evidence was closed within two days and without giving any more opportunity. This court while issuing notice directed the trial court to record the evidence of the plaintiff on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- by the plaintiff-petitioner. This court also directed by the same order dated 8.8.2008 to the SBCWP No.5504/2008 Mohan Lal Vs. Darga Ram & Anr. 3 petitioner-plaintiff to produce his entire evidence on the date already fixed by the trial court i.e., 11.8.2008. since the defendants did not accept the cost and raised objection against recording of evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses therefore, in view of the order dated 8.8.2008, the proceedings of the trial court remained stayed. Today learned counsel for the respondent tried to justify the order but in view of the facts mentioned above, I do not find any justification for closing the evidence of the plaintiff by the trial court within two days and after giving one opportunity for cross-examination of the witness Mafat Lal. In view of the above reason, the writ petition is allowed and the the order dated 19th May, 2008 is set aside on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- which was imposed by order dated 8.8.2008. The plaintiff shall produce his all evidence on the date already fixed by the trial court and if it is fixed within 10 days then the trial court may fix appropriate date for evidence of the plaintiff and on that SBCWP No.5504/2008 Mohan Lal Vs. Darga Ram & Anr. 4 day, the plaintiff shall produce his all evidence and shall also keep witness Mafat Lal present for cross-examination and in case, on that date, the evidence is not completed, then trial court may further proceed to fix the date for evidence of plaintiff. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/- SBCWP No.5504/2008 Mohan Lal Vs. Darga Ram & Anr. 5