1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.1143/2005 Shanti Lal & Anr. vs Shri Kanhaiya Lal & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 1.4.2005. HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.Suresh Srimali, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court in revision petition no.780/2000 preferred to challenged the order dated 19th Oct., 2000 by which petitioner's evidence was closed by the trial court. It was ordered by this Court in above revision that if petitioner produces his entire evidence before the trial court on 10th March, 2003 then the petitioner may be permitted to lead his evidence. The above order was conditional, on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-. The revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 8th Nov., 2004 after taking note of the fact that petitioner's another revision petition no.779/2000 preferred to challenge the order passed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has already been dismissed and because of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the revision petition 2 no.780/2000 became not maintainable. Now the apprehension of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was permitted to produce evidence on payment of cost and he paid the entire cost as imposed by this Court in interim order dated 26.2.2003 and has been accepted by the respondent and petitioner's witnesses have already been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent, but because of dismissal of the petitioner's revision petition no.780/2000, the petitioner had fear that there may be objection of the respondent that after dismissal of the revision petition, the interim order dated 26.2.2003 stands vacated and the evidence led in pursuance of the interim order cannot be read in evidence. The apprehension of the petitioner appears to be not well founded because of the reason that in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.780/2000 the order dated 26.2.2003 was passed in the presence of both the parties and it is pertinent to mention here that this Court in interim order observed that though the learned counsel for the respondent has reservation about the proposition, but in the interest of justice he accepts the proposal that if the petitioner produces his entire evidence before the trial court on 10.3.2003, then the petitioner may be permitted to lead his evidence. This Court also observed that if the entire evidence is produced and cost of Rs.2000/- is given, the evidence 3 of the petitioner will be taken by the trial court. When the proposal was accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent before this Court and, thereafter, the respondent accepted the cost as imposed by this Court in its order dated 26.2.2003 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition NO.780/2000, then mere dismissal of the revision petition on becoming not maintainable clearly indicates only that the order dated 26.2.2003 was passed as the respondent's counsel accepted the proposal as recorded by this Court in its order dated 26.2.2003 and, therefore, the dismissal of the revision petition will not come in the way of the petitioner so as to have any fear of the petitioner that his evidence on record can be challenged by the respondent even after accepting the cost for the purpose of permitting the petitioner's evidence. With these observations, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (Prakash Tatia), J. c.p.goyal/-