1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7717/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7717/2005. Ram Karan @ Ram Chandra. VERSUS The Civil Judge (JD) & JM, First Class, Dudu & Others. 06.03.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Rajendra Vaish, for the petitioner. Mr.V.K.Jain, for the respondents. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.05.2005 by which the learned trial court has closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner on account of the fact that the witness of the plaintiff Bajrang Lal was not present on the said date as well as on the previous date i.e. 16.03.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner had submitted the affidavits of his witnesses Bajrang Lal and Ram Kripal on 16.03.2005 and on the said date both the witnesses were present. However, on the said date the counsel for the defendant sought time to cross examine the witnesses as the defendant had left the court premises and the documents on the basis of which the cross examination was to be carried out was said to be in possession of the defendant. 2 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7717/2005 Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that when the witness was present, the counsel for the defendant sought an adjournment and the witness Bajrang Lal could not attend the court on account of the marriage in his family. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff failed to produce any satisfactory proof of the fact that a marriage took place in the family of Bajrang Lal and on account of which the said witness was not present. He submits that neither there was any invitation card nor any particulars of the person whose marriage took place and what is the relationship of the said person with the witness Bajrang Lal for whose wedding the said witness had gone and could not attend the court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is true that on 01.12.2004 the witnesses of the plaintiff were produced and their affidavits were filed but the defendant sought time to cross examine the witnesses and on the subsequent date the witnesses were not present and an opportunity was granted on 16.03.2005 for producing the witness Bajrang Lal on the next date i.e. 11.05.2005. On 11.05.2005, the witness was not present and, therefore, the court was constrained to pass the impugned order closing the evidence of the plaintiff. 3 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7717/2005 In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiff to produce the witness Bajrang Lal for cross examination on his affidavit submitted on 01.12.2004. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the next date in the matter before the learned trial court is 22.04.2009. On the said date, it would be for the plaintiff himself to produce the witness Bajrang Lal, whose affidavit has been filed on 01.12.2004 on his own without seeking the assistance of the court for issue of process. The witness shall be examined on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the defendant which shall be a condition precedent for recording the statement of the said witness in court. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that no further opportunity would be sought by the plaintiff in this behalf. Subject to the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application also stands disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.