// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.804/2004 Mahipal Gupta S/o Shri Tara Chand ...Petitioner Versus The Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Others ...Respondents 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8299/2006 Mahipal Gupta S/o Shri Tara Chand ...Petitioner Versus Additional Civil Judge (JD), Jaipur City, Jaipur & Another ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 31.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rajat Ranjan, Counsel for petitioner in both the cases Shri Madhav Mitra, Counsel for respondent No.3 in both the cases #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Both the writ petitions arise out of one suit in between both the parties, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in the trial court in respect of disputed property along-with an application for temporary injunction, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 18th April, 2001, and the order of status-quo in respect of disputed property was passed. However, the appellate court set-aside the // 2 // order passed by the trial court while partly allowing the appeal of the defendant. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff-petitioner filed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.1510/2001, which was dismissed as not maintainable by this Court vide order dated 8th December, 2003, and thereafter S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.804/2004 was preferred before this Court. The trial court, vide its order dated 25th September, 2006 closed the evidence of the plaintiff and the said order was challenged by him in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8299/2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that defendant is encroaching upon the public road, therefore, the appellate court committed an illegality in setting-aside the order of the trial court maintaining the status-quo in respect of the disputed property, whereas the learned counsel for the defendant contended that he is in possession of the disputed property since the time immemorial and there is no prima- facie case in favour of the plaintiff and the appellate court rightly set- aside the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. So far as Writ Petition No.8299/2006 is concerned, the learned Counsel for respondent has not objected about grant of one opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence in the trial court on a particular date, however, his submission is that the Civil Suit was filed in the year 2000, therefore, it being an old suit, a direction may be given to the trial court to conclude the trial of the suit within a period of six months. // 3 // I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below in respect of application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC as well as closing of evidence of the plaintiff and, after considering the same, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet in case an opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to lead his evidence on two dates to be fixed by this court, on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and the trial court may be directed to expedite the trial as early as possibly preferably within a period of nine months and during the pendency of the suit both the parties may maintain the status-quo in respect of disputed property. Consequently, both the writ petitions are disposed of. The plaintiff may examine its evidence at his own on 6th and 7th of May, 2008 on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) which will be paid before recording the statement of the plaintiffs witnesses. If the plaintiff fails to pay the amount of costs then he will not be allowed to lead his evidence and his evidence will be deemed to have been closed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit as far as possible preferably within a period of nine months. It is further directed that both the parties shall maintain the status-quo in respect of the disputed property during the pendency of the suit in the trial court. Since this order decides two writ petition, therefore, a copy of this order may be placed in another Writ Petition No.8299/2006 also for ready reference. // 4 // There will be no order as to costs so far as these writ petitions are concerned. Record of the trial court may be sent back immediately. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 5 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.729/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.804/2004 Mahipal Gupta S/o Shri Tara Chand ...Petitioner Versus The Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Others ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 31.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rajat Ranjan, Counsel for petitioner Shri Madhav Mitra, Counsel for respondent No.3 #### By the Court:- In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//