//1// IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1074/2008 Shyam Sunder Sharma Versus Additional District & Session Judge, Neem Ka Thana & Others Date of Order :: 5th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Amit Gupta for the petitioner Mr. Anoop Dhand for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Anoop Dhand, advocate appears for respondents no. 2 to 6, who are contesting respondents. The service of respondent no.1 is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This writ petition on behalf of plaintiff is directed against the impugned order dated 22.1.2008 (Annexure-6), whereby an application filed by plaintiff to reopen his evidence has been rejected and also against the order dated 10.9.2007, whereby plaintiff's evidence was closed. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 14.8.2007, the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 was recorded and //2// thereafter a last opportunity was granted to petitioner-plaintiff to adduce his evidence on 10.9.2007 but on that day, the advocates were on strike. The plaintiff's witness Sahi Ram was present in the court but due to inadvertence, the reader of the said court wrongly drawn the proceeding, wherein it was mentioned that the defendant's witness Sahi Ram was present, whereas he was witness of plaintiff and consequently it was written in the order-sheet that the case is fixed for defendant's evidence, whereas the case should have been fixed for plaintiff's evidence. He further contended that an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff to reopen his evidence but the same was also rejected, which is apparently illegal and both the orders are liable to be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence since 24.2.2007 and it was adjourned from time to time on his request. Thereafter case was fixed on 14.8.2007. The statement of PW-1 and PW-2 was recorded and a last opportunity was granted on that day to the plaintiff, but the evidence was not recorded on the next day by the plaintiff, therefore, in //3// these circumstances the plaintiff's evidence was rightly closed. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 22.1.2008 as well as the order-sheets of the lower court from 24.2.2007 to 24.9.2007 and after considering the same, it appears that due to inadvertence on the part of the reader of the lower court, it was wrongly mentioned in the order sheet dated 10.9.2007 that Sahi Ram was defendant's witness, whereas he was plaintiff's witness which is clear from the order sheet dated 24.7.2007. In these circumstances, the case was wrongly fixed for defendant's evidence in place of plaintiff's evidence. However, it is also clear that a last opportunity was granted to plaintiff on 14.8.2007 to adduce his evidence on 10.9.2007. In case there was strike of advocates on that day, then plaintiff's witness should have remained present on 24.9.2007 but no witness was present on their behalf. In these circumstances, I find that the order dated 22.1.2008 was rightly passed, however, in the interest of justice, I grant one more last opportunity to plaintiff to examine his witnesses in the trial court on 18th & 19th //4// August, 2008 on the payment of cost of Rs. 1500/- which will be paid on or before the aforesaid date, failing which the plaintiff shall not be allowed to examine his witnesses and his evidence will be deemed to have been closed and no further opportunity in this regard will be granted to the plaintiff. 7. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK