SBCWP No.7579/2008 Chairman LIC & Ors. Vs. LRs of Laxman Singh & Anr. 1 SBCWP No.7579/2008 Chairman LIC & Ors. Vs. LRs of Laxman Singh & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 9.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.JL Purohit, for the petitioner. MR. MS Godara, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's evidence was closed vide order dated 2nd Sept., 2008, hence, the petitioner-defendant has preferred this writ petition. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, on 29th April, 2008 the affidavit on behalf of the defendant- petitioner was submitted as the burden was placed upon the defendant by the court while framing the issues and next date fixed was 15th May, 2008. On 15th May, 2008, due to the suspension of the work in court, the case was adjourned to next date i.e., 2nd June, 2008. On 2nd June, 2008 defendant's two witnesses were examined. On next date SBCWP No.7579/2008 Chairman LIC & Ors. Vs. LRs of Laxman Singh & Anr. 2 i.e., on 21st July, 2008 an application was submitted by the defendant praying that one of the doctor is a Government servant, therefore, he may be summoned, but that application has been rejected on same day i.e., on 21st July, 2008 on the ground that defendant did not submit the list of witnesses and the court fixed the next date on 2nd Sept., 2008. On 2nd Sept., 2008 the evidence of another witness of the defendant was taken on record and he was cross- examined and the trial court refused to grant more opportunities to defendant to produce evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the opportunities were granted to the defendant to produce the evidence and the defendant did not submit the list of witnesses, therefore, the court was justified in closing the evidence of the defendant. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the order-sheets referred above. It is clear from the above order-sheets that the defendant made all his efforts to produce witnesses and did not seek any unnecessary adjournment. He produced witnesses on 29th April, 2008 and on that day time was sought by the SBCWP No.7579/2008 Chairman LIC & Ors. Vs. LRs of Laxman Singh & Anr. 3 plaintiff-respondent. On next date, the court did not work and on next date two witnesses were cross-examined and, thereafter, an application was submitted for summoning of witness and that was rejected and, thereafter, on next date defendant's another witness was examined. Looking to the totality of the facts of the case and the conduct of the defendant-petitioner this court deems it proper that the court should have granted opportunity to the defendant to produce witnesses and should also have called the doctor who was the most relevant witness in the facts of the case. In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 2nd Sept., 2008 closing the evidence of the defendant-petitioner is set aside on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to the plaintiff. The defendant shall also be entitled to summon the doctor, which prayer has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 21st July, 2008. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-