1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER Kalyan (Since Deceased) through LRs. Vs. Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sawai Madhopur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5931/2010) Date of Order :- April 26, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.J.P. Goyal, for the respondent Nos.5 & 6. Mr. J.P. Goyal has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.5 & 6. Therefore, the notices are deemed to be served upon them. Since the dispute is squarely between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.5 & 6, notices on respondent Nos.1 to 4, who happen to be the proforma party, need not be served. The respondent No.7 has already died. Therefore, the service is deemed to be complete. With the consent of both the parties, this case is being decided at the initial stage itself. The grievance of the petitioners is that vide order 09.04.2010, their evidence, as the plaintiff, has been closed by the learned trial court. Consequently, even the evidence of the defendant has also been closed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, only four opportunities had been given to the plaintiff to submit his evidence. Therefore, the learned trial court 2 is not justified in claiming that “sufficient opportunities” have been given to the plaintiff. Moreover, on 09.04.2010, an application had been moved by the plaintiff clearly bringing it to the notice of the trial court that the record of the case has already been sent to the counsel at the High Court as there are certain writ petitions pending before the High Court. Therefore, it was not possible for him to produce the evidence. Notwithstanding the said application, in a mechanical manner, the application has been dismissed and the plaintiff's evidence has been closed. Mr. J.P. Goyal, the learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 & 6. He has frankly conceded that he has no objection if the evidence of the plaintiff and of the defendant were re-opened. For, it would give both the parties a chance to place their respective cases before the trial court. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 09.04.2010 is, hereby, set aside; and the trial court is directed to give sufficient opportunities to the plaintiff and to the defendant to lead their evidence. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-