1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7159/2008 S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICAITON No.../09 Shri Shardul Education Trust v/s Shri Surendra Singh & Ors. DATE OF ORDER ::: NOVEMBER 13, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri S.K. Singodiya, for the petitioner. Shri D.S. Kurka, for the respondents. BY THE COURT : At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed of finally. The land-lord applicant has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 6.5.2008 whereby its evidence has been closed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 30.8.2007, one Mool Singh filed an application under O.1 R. 10 CPC and the case was thereafter fixed for consideration of points which were involved in the application and as mentioned in the order 2 dated 30.8.2007. The applicant remained under this impression that the case is fixed for decision on points arose out of an application filed by Mool Singh. Therefore, he could not produce its evidence and thereafter it was closed vide order dated 6.5.2008 which is under challenge in this writ petition. It is contended that the applicant was interested in early disposal of the suit as the suit was for eviction and he was not going to be benefited in any manner by delaying the application for eviction. Therefore, one more opportunity be granted to the applicant to lead its evidence on payment of costs. He agreed that the applicant would pay costs of Rs.3000/- to compensate the opposite party. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant-petitioner is a land- lord of the rented premises and he filed an application under the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, for eviction and determination of rent. The case was fixed 3 for applicant's evidence and on 24.8.2007 one Mool Singh filed an application under O.1 R. 10 read with section 151 CPC and the case was fixed for orders on that application on 30.8.2007. No doubt that the case was fixed on applicant's evidence from time to time and it was lastly closed on 6.5.2008. From the order-sheets placed on record, it is clear that the applicant was afforded opportunities to lead its evidence from time to time. In these circumstances, the order passed by the trial court, appears to be legal and justified. However, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice will be met in case one more opportunity is allowed to the applicant to lead its evidence on a particular day at their own, on payment of costs. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The applicant is permitted to lead its evidence at their own before the Tribunal on 8th & 9th December, 2009, on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- as agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is made clear that in case the evidence is not adduced by the 4 applicant on the above dates, then their evidence will be deemed to have been closed and no further opportunity will be granted to the applicant. No order as to costs so far as this writ petition is concerned. Consequent upon disposal of the writ petition, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain), J. chauhan/