1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12160/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12160/2010 Bal Mukund Sharma Vs. Kailash Chandra Sharma & Others. Date of Order: 13.12.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Mr. G.P. Kaushik, for the petitioner. Mr. H.R. Kumawat and Ms. Lalima Purohit, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court against Defendant No. 1/petitioner as well as Defendants No. 2 and 3/Respondents No. 2 and 3, praying that defendants may be restrained from raising any construction over the disputed public way and for not issuing any lease deed or allotment letter of the same in favour of Defendant No. 1. 3. The suit was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 26.04.2010. Statements of P.W. 3 Gokulchand and P.W. 4 Sitaram were recorded, plaintiff's evidence was closed and the case was 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12160/2010 fixed for defendants' evidence on 04.05.2010. However, plaintiff moved an application in the trial court on 04.05.2010 under Section 151 CPC to grant him one more opportunity to examine himself and one another witness Ramji Lal. A copy of the application was supplied to defendants. Case was fixed for arguments on the application on 10.05.2010, again on 19.05.2010, then 03.07.2010, 22.07.2010. Trial court heard arguments of the parties and vide order dated 24.07.2010 allowed the application and granted an opportunity to plaintiff at the cost of Rs. 5,00/- to examine himself and his witness Ramji Lal with a condition that no other witnesses will be allowed to be examined and fixed the case for plaintiff's evidence on 16.08.2010. 4. On 16.08.2010, witness of plaintiff was not present and plaintiff moved an application under order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. Case was fixed for arguments on the application on 17.08.2010. Trial court vide order dated 17.08.2010 allowed the application at the cost of Rs. 300/- and the document was taken on record. As per earlier order, case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 01.09.2010. Being aggrieved with the orders dated 24.07.2010 and 17.08.2010 passed by trial court, Defendant No. 1/petitioner has preferred 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12160/2010 this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that present suit was filed in the year 1998. Plaintiff was granted nine opportunities to lead evidence. Plaintiff himself closed his evidence on 26.04.2010. However, on his application, trial court again granted time to lead evidence of plaintiff and his witness Ram Ji Lal at the cost of Rs. 500/-, but instead of examining these witnesses, plaintiff again moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC to take certain document on record. Since Defendant No. 1 has been restrained by the trial court and injunction order is going on against him for last more than 12 years, therefore, plaintiff is delaying the matter. In these circumstances, impugned orders passed by trial court may be set aside and plaintiff's evidence be closed. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 submitted that on 26.04.2010 plaintiff could not understand that his evidence has been closed, therefore, on next date, he moved an application to allow him to lead evidence. Cross-examination of plaintiff 4 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12160/2010 is necessary, therefore, learned trial court was right in allowing him to lead evidence of plaintiff and his witness Ramji Lal. He further submitted that placing of document on record was necessary, therefore, an application was moved, which has been allowed by the trial court. He further contended that there is no delay on his part and even if this Court comes to a conclusion that it being a suit of 1998 and delay is there on part of the plaintiff, then he is ready to compensate the petitioner by way of cost. According to him, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- will be the reasonable amount of cost. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the same in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court in the impugned orders for allowing the plaintiff to lead evidence and to allow him to place on record a document. 8. There is no dispute between the parties that suit was filed in the year 1998 and Defendant No. 1/petitioner was restrained by way of an injunction, which is going on against him for last more than 12 years. From the above proceedings it is clear that plaintiff is delaying the matter. However, in the interest 5 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12160/2010 of justice, I think it fit and proper to grant one more opportunity as last opportunity to the plaintiff to examine himself on the next date i.e. 15.12.2010 fixed in the trial court at the cost of Rs. 3,000/-, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties. 9. In view of above discussions, writ petition is disposed off with a direction to trial court to allow the plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 Kailash Chandra Sharma to examine himself in the trial court on 15.12.2010, date fixed in the case, on payment of Rs. 3,000/- as cost to the Defendant No. 1/petitioner. 10. It is made clear that in case amount of cost is not paid, then plaintiff will not be allowed to examine himself on the next date and no further opportunity will be granted to him and case will be fixed for defendants' evidence. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj, Item No.1.