// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1231/2008 Gopal S/o Bhanwar Lal Versus Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Others Date of Order ::: 19.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri M.M. Ranjan, Counsel for petitioner Shri Vikramaditya Shekhawat, Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri Vikramaditya Shekhawat, Advocate, appears for contesting respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner in the Court of S.D.O., Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur, which was fixed for defendant's evidence, but the defendant failed to adduce any evidence, therefore, his evidence was closed vide order dated 23rd March, 2007. Being aggrieved with the same, a revision petition was preferred by the defendant, which was allowed by // 2 // Revenue Board vide order dated 13th April, 2007 and the defendant was directed to adduce his all evidence before the S.D.O., and the parties were directed to remain present before the S.D.O., Jamwa Ramgarh, on 21st May, 2007. Thereafter two witnesses were examined including the defendant but remaining three witnesses, namely, Chand Bai, Narmada and another Gopal, could not be examined in spite of number of opportunities granted to the defendant-petitioner, therefore, the defendant's evidence was further closed. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant again preferred revision petition before the Revenue Board, which was dismissed at admission stage itself vide order dated 30th November, 2007, which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the defendant. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after grant of opportunity by the Revenue Board vide order dated 13th April, 2007, the Presiding Officer was either not present or remained on official tour on most of the dates and, as and when he was present, the defendant submitted the affidavits of his witnesses and also examined two witnesses // 3 // but, so far as remaining three witnesses are concerned, the same could not be examined, therefore, one last opportunity may further be granted to the petitioner for this purpose on payment of costs which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, may be up-to Rupees five thousand. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and contended that in spite of number of opportunities granted by the trial court and even by the Revenue Board, the defendant failed to examine his witnesses, therefore, no further opportunity should be granted to him. In alternative, he contended that in case this Court inclines to grant one more opportunity to the defendant then a particular date(s) may be given to examine his all witnesses and the defendant may be directed to produce them at his own. He also prays for award of heavy costs. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order as well as other documents annexed with the writ petition. I have also perused the order-sheets of the S.D.O. from 21st May, 2007 onwards, which were // 4 // referred during the course of arguments. It appears that the Revenue Board directed both the parties to remain present before the S.D.O., Jamwa Ramgarh, on 21st May, 2007, and the defendant was directed to adduce his evidence. From the order-sheets, it appears that on 21st May, 2007, the Presiding Officer was on leave. Thereafter the case was fixed for 4th June, 2007 but on that date also no witness of the defendant was present. The Presiding Officer was also on leave. Thereafter on 13th June, 2007 the defendant produced affidavits of Gopal and Chand Bai. The case was fixed for 19th June, 2007 but the witnesses of the defendant were not present. The case was adjourned from time to time but, for one or the other reason, the remaining three witnesses of the defendant could not be examined. In these circumstances, the defendant's evidence was closed by the trial court. Thereafter an application under Section 151 CPC was filed to allow the defendant to examine his remaining witnesses but the same was dismissed and the revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the Revenue Board. // 5 // From the aforesaid facts of the case, it is clear that sufficient opportunity was granted to the defendant, however, on some of the dates the Presiding Officer was either on leave or remained on official tour or busy in meetings. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would meet in case one last opportunity is granted to the defendant-petitioner to examine his all remaining witnesses on a particular date(s) to be fixed by this court on payment of costs of Rupees five thousand, as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The defendant-petitioner is permitted to examine his remaining all the three witnesses at his own, on 20th, 21st and 22nd of October, 2008. The S.D.O., Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur, is directed to examine the witnesses of the defendant on these dates positively. The defendant will pay the amount of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the plaintiffs on or before 20th October, 2008 or before examination of his witnesses, failing which the order passed by the S.D.O. closing the evidence of the defendant will be deemed to have been upheld. // 6 // In case, for any reason, the S.D.O. is unable to record the statements of the defendant's witnesses on the aforesaid three dates then he will fix the date for that purpose within ten days and no further opportunity in this regard will be granted to the defendant thereafter. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the costs is made easy. A copy of this order may be sent to the S.D.O., Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur, for compliance. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//