1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13523/2009. Murli & Anr VS C.J. (JD)-cum-JM, First Class, Thanagagi & Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13523/2009. Murli and Another. VERSUS Civil Judge (JD)-cum-JM, First Class, Thanagagi & Others. 11.01.2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Praveen Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr.Anand Sharma ] Mr.Rahul Tiwari ] for the respondents. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been preferred by the plaintiff-petitioners whose evidence has been closed by the learned trial court on the ground that the witnesses who were required to be present before the court were not present on 26.05.2009. Moreover, the learned trial court took into consideration that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioners but they failed to produce evidence and at least twenty two dates were given for this purpose. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents produce the copies of the ordersheets right from 09.07.2007 which show that on most of these occasions, either the Presiding Officer was not available or the Advocates had suspended the work due to which the evidence of the plaintiff could not be recorded. 2 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13523/2009. Murli & Anr VS C.J. (JD)-cum-JM, First Class, Thanagagi & Ors. The above facts are not in dispute and are evident from the ordersheets. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, what is relevant to be seen is whether there was sufficient cause on account of which the plaintiff could not produce evidence on the date fixed i.e. 26.05.2009. So far as the above date is concerned, the plaintiff was present and three of the witnesses were also present and so far as one of the witnesses Haridawari Lal is concerned, all of sudden his father Lallu Ram fell ill and all the three witnesses who were present had to rush to take the ailing father of Haridawari Lal to the hospital at Alwar. So far as the learned trial court is concerned, I am of the view that what was required to be seen is whether there was sufficient cause for the plaintiff not to have produced himself and his witnesses on the date already fixed and not merely the conduct of the plaintiff/petitioner. While conduct of a party is relevant, nonetheless, the learned trial court granted an opportunity to the plaintiff/petitioner to bring his witnesses on 26.05.2009 and the plaintiff/petitioner and his three witnesses were present before the court on the said date but the witnesses had to leave the court on account of unforeseen circumstances. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court could have granted one more opportunity to the 3 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13523/2009. Murli & Anr VS C.J. (JD)-cum-JM, First Class, Thanagagi & Ors. plaintiff/petitioner to lead evidence when these facts were not controverted by the defendant. In the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to accept this writ petition and set aside the impugned order and direct that on the next date fixed in the matter which is 09.03.2010, the plaintiff/petitioner shall bring all his witnesses to the court and ensure that affidavits of all his witnesses are filed on or before 30.01.2010. It is made clear that no further opportunity will be granted to the plaintiff/petitioner in this regard by the learned trial court. Subject to the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.