// 1 // I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR ORDER IN S.B. Civ il W r it Pet it ion No.63 2 8 / 2 0 0 3 M/ Rajasthan Trunk Company, Jaipur Ver sus Municipal Corporation, Lal Kothi, Jaipur through its Commissioner Dat e of Or der ::: 3 0 .0 5 .2 0 0 8 Present Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice Nar endr a Ku m ar Jain Shri Anant Bhandari, Counsel for the petitioner Shri S.N. Gupta, Counsel for the respondent # # # # By t h e Cou r t : - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for injunction against the respondent in the trial court wherein the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 16th August, 1999. The plaintiff was present in the Court on that date and an application was moved on his behalf to the effect that he is heart-patient and feeling not well, therefore, the case may be adjourned. The trial court dismissed the said application and closed the evidence of the plaintiff observing that the case is pending since 1989 and the plaintiff's evidence is going on since 1992, and plaintiff has already sought about forty adjournments. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the facts mentioned in the impugned order are correct and the case was adjourned for about 40 dates for plaintiff's evidence but his submission is that on 16 th August, 1999 the plaintiff was present // 2 // in the court for deposing his statement but, due to heart-pain suffered by him, he was not in a position to depose his statement, therefore the application was moved for grant of one more opportunity for plaintiff's evidence. He contended that there was a reasonable cause for the plaintiff for not getting his statement recorded on that particular date, which should have been taken into consideration by the trial court while considering the application of the plaintiff, therefore, the trial court committed an illegality in closing the evidence of the plaintiff, therefore, one more opportunity may be granted to him for this purpose. So far as delay of proceedings is concerned, he contended that this could not be a ground for closing the evidence of the plaintiff on that date looking to the reasons assigned in the application or at the most the defendants could have been compensated by way of costs. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and reiterated the submissions in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court in the impugned order, as mentioned above. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The trial court has observed that the suit was instituted in the year 1989 and the plaintiff's evidence was going on in the case since 1992, and about forty opportunities had already been granted to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. However, in view of the reasons assigned in the application and // 3 // further that the further proceedings have been stayed by this Court on 14 th November, 2005 and since then the matter is pending in the trial court, I think it fit and proper to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiff to lead his evidence on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/ -. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16 th August, 1999 is set-aside. The plaintiff-petitioner himself will adduce all evidence at his own in the trial court on 15th and 16th of July, 2008. It is made clear that in case the plaintiff fails to adduce his evidence on the aforesaid date or fails to pay the aforesaid amount of costs on or before the aforesaid date then the writ petition will be deemed to have been dismissed and no further opportunity in this regard will be granted to the petitioner by the trial court. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the costs is made easy. ( Nar en dr a Ku m ar Jain) J. / / Jaiman/ / // 4 // I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR ORDER IN S.B. Civ il Misc. St ay Applicat ion No.52 61 / 2 0 03 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6328/ 2003 M/ s Rajasthan Trunk Company, Jaipur Ver sus Municipal Corporation, Lal Kothi, Jaipur through its Commissioner Dat e of Or der ::: 3 0 .0 5 .2 0 0 8 Present Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice Nar endr a Ku m ar Jain Shri Anant Bhandari, Counsel for the petitioner Shri S.N. Gupta, Counsel for the respondent # # # # By t h e Cou r t : - In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of. ( Nar endr a Ku m ar Jain) J. / / Jaiman/ /