1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Smt. Meera Meena Vs. District Judge, Sikar & Ors. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.2172/2009) S. B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: August 06, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Ashok Mishra, for the petitioner. Mr.J.R. Choudhary, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: Although this case is listed in the category of 'Orders', but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is being decided finally. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.01.2009, passed by the District Judge, Sikar whereby the learned Judge has restricted the right of the petitioner to produce only a single witness namely Shri Jhabbar Singh. Mr. Ashok Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the suit was filed on 21.09.2006 for cancellation of a sale- deed and for specific performance of a contract. 2 Despite the fact that the suit was filed in 2006, the learned trial court has erroneously observed that the suit has been pending for the last thirty-three years. The learned counsel has taken this Court through the order-sheets from 02.07.2007 till the impugned order dated 27.01.2009 in order to buttress his contention that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to produce her evidence. Therefore, the learned counsel states that sufficient opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to produce her witnesses. According to the learned counsel, six persons still need to be produced as witnesses, namely Shri Kumbha Ram, Shri Dhanna Ram, Shri Phool Chand, Shri Ram Narain, the Stamp Vendor Shri Jayanti Lal, and the Notary Public. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to produce first four witnesses on her own, but the presence of the Public Notary and the presence of the Stamp Vendor Shri Jayanti Lal would have to be secured by summoning them. On the other hand, Mr. J.R. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondents, has supported the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 3 A bare perusal of the order-sheets, produced before this Court, clearly reveals that the petitioner was, in fact, not given sufficient opportunity to produce her witnesses. Therefore, the learned trial court was certainly not justified in restricting the right of the petitioner to examining just a single witness. Since the right to produce the witnesses and the evidence is a valuable right, it could not have been denied to the petitioner in a hyper- mechanical manner. Therefore, this Court directs the trial court to examine Shri Jhabbar Singh and the other above named witnesses within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is directed to ensure that Mr. Jhabbar Singh and four other above named witnesses namely, Shri Kumbha Ram, Shri Dhanna Ram, Shri Phool Chand, Shri Ram Narain are produced before the learned trial court within a period of one month. Thereafter, the learned trial court shall summon the Public Notary and the Stamp Vendor, Shri Jayanti Lal and ensure that the evidence of the petitioner is completed within a period of one month. With these observation, this petition is, hereby, allowed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki