IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9775/2005. Fauji Aata Flour Mill, Shahjahanpur, Alwar Versus Garg and Company, Kishangarhbas, Alwar & Another Date of Order ::: 22.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Prashant Sharma, advocate, for Shri Alok Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner Shri Ishwar Jain, Counsel for the respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 instituted a suit for recovery against the defendant/petitioner in the trial Court, wherein the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 04.08.2004 and, thereafter the case was fixed for the defendant's evidence. However, the defendants did not adduce any evidence, therefore, the same was closed vide order dated 19.09.2005. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition, preferred on behalf of the defendant. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 05.07.2005 the defendant had produced his evidence, but on the said date the Work of the Court was suspended due to sad demise of the Former Chief Justice and, on 19.09.2005 the petitioner could not come, as his father was seriously suffering from the Cancer and he was at Delhi, therefore, he could not adduce the evidence. He further contended that so far as the delay of proceedings is concerned, the same could have been compensated by way of costs. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order be set aside and, one last opportunity may be given to the petitioner to adduce its evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent contested the writ petition and contended that the defendants failed to adduce its evidence during the period from 04.08.2004 to 19.09.2005 and due to it, his suit could not be decided at an early date. He further contended that so far as the delay is concerned, a suitable amount of costs may be imposed while allowing the defendant to lead its evidence. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and, after considering the same, I think it fit and proper that the ends of justice will meet in allowing the defendant to adduce its evidence on a particular date to be fixed by this Court on payment of costs. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.09.2005 is set aside. The defendant/ petitioner is permitted to adduce its evidence on 10th and 11th, July, 2008 on payment of costs of Rs.3000/-, with the clear understanding that in case the petitioner fails to adduce its evidence on the aforesaid date and/or the amount of costs is not paid on or before the aforesaid date, then its evidence will be deemed to have been closed and, no further opportunity in this regard will be granted to the petitioner. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. Ashok/