// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5884/2004 Smt. Leela Devi W/o Shri Vikram Versus Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Sawai Madhopur and Another Date of Order ::: 03.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Amit Jindal, Counsel for petitioner Shri G.P. Kaushik, Counsel for respondent No.2 #### By the Court:- Admit. At the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the final arguments were heard in the case. Defendant-petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 10th May, 2004 (Annexure-5), whereby the trial court refused to frame any additional issue, and the order dated 5th August, 2004 (Annexure-7), whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall the plaintiff's witnesses for further cross- examination, was rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court allowed the application of the defendant under Order 6 Rule // 2 // 17 CPC for amendment in the written-statement vide order dated 30th January, 2003, and thereafter it was a duty of the trial court to frame additional issue in respect of amendment allowed in the written-statement. He further contended that some amount was paid to the plaintiff by the defendant and the plaintiff had issued receipts in respect thereof, therefore, it is necessary to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses again on the said receipts. The trial court, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting both the applications filed by defendants. The learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondents contended that both the applications have been filed by the defendants only to delay the proceedings as this is a case for recovery of the amount filed by the plaintiff, which was filed in the year 2000, and since then for one or the other reason the matter has been delayed by the defendant. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of impugned orders passed by the trial court. So far as the order dated 10th May, 2004 (Annexure-5) is concerned, the trial court has observed that in view of the amendment allowed in the written-statement there is no need to // 3 // frame any additional issue in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also unable to show as to what issue is required to be framed after amendment in the written-statement. So far as the order dated 5th August, 2004 (Annexure-7) is concerned, the trial court has observed that plaintiff's evidence has already been concluded. The defendant had already cross-examined the plaintiff's witnesses. The so-called receipts were available with the defendant and she could have cross-examined the plaintiff's witnesses at the relevant time on that basis but for the reasons best known to her, she did not examine the plaintiff's witness on that basis. The learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has admitted that the so-called receipts have already been placed on the record by him and the same have been taken on the record, and the same can/will be proved by his witnesses. The reasons assigned by the trial court while passing the impugned orders Annexures 5 and 7 appear to be justified and no interference in the impugned orders is called for in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, as I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the same. There is no merit in this writ petition // 4 // and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//