SBCWP No.9099/2008 Abdul Rashid Vs. Abdul Gaffar & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.9099/2008 Abdul Rashid Vs. Abdul Gaffar & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 25.2.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. SP Sharma, for the petitioner. Dr. Sachin Acharaya, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 25.10.1002 (Annex.1) by which the petitioner's application filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for summoning an agreement dated 24.12.1975 was rejected by the trial court and by the same order, the petitioner's evidence was closed. This Court vide order dated 12.10.2009 directed the trial court to proceed with the cross-examination of the petitioner's witnesses in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2nd Dec., 2008 on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-, then in the trial court, the witness has already been cross- examined after depositing of cost of Rs.2,000/- by the SBCWP No.9099/2008 Abdul Rashid Vs. Abdul Gaffar & Ors. 2 petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court committee serious error of law by rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC as the respondents have not denied the fact of having possession of the agreement dated 24.12.1975 on oath. It is clear from the facts of the case that the suit was filed in the year 1998 and the petitioner and his predecessor had knowledge of the said agreement, but they did not take any step for getting it produced from the respondents in the period of 10 years and evidence of the plaintiff and defendants both were closed and the application has been submitted when rebuttal evidence was going on. I do not find any illegality in the order of the trial court rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC. So far as closure of evidence is concerned, in the totality of the facts of the case and in view of the fact that petitioner deposited cost of Rs.2,000/- and the witness has already been cross-examined by the respondents, therefore, the order of the trial court so far as it relates to closure of SBCWP No.9099/2008 Abdul Rashid Vs. Abdul Gaffar & Ors. 3 the evidence of the plaintiff is concerned, i.e., set aside and the evidence already recorded shall be the part of the proceedings of the trial court. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is partly allowed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/- `