SBCWP No.7120/2008 Balu & Anr. Vs. Bhura Lal & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.7120/2008 Balu & Anr. Vs. Bhura Lal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 1.4.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Sanjay Nahar, for the petitioner. <><><> Notice of respondent no.3 has received unserved, but he was ex-parte before the trial court and rest of the defendants have already been served and nobody appeared, therefore, heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merit. This Court in identical facts, but in different suit has allowed the writ petition of the petitioner Chittar Kumawat & Anr. (SBCWP No.7118/2008), therefore, this court deems it proper to follow the same view in this writ petition also as the facts and point involved in this writ petition is also identical to the fact and issue involved in the writ petition no.7118/2008, decided today itself i.e.,1.4.2009. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is held that the trial court has committed error by closing the evidence of the plaintiff while deciding the application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC and that too when the trial court itself SBCWP No.7120/2008 Balu & Anr. Vs. Bhura Lal & Ors. 2 held that suit is required to be restored as the explanation given by the plaintiff for his non-appearance on particular date is just and proper. The order of the trial court closing evidence of the plaintiff is set aside. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-