1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1461/2008 {Dr. Urmil Divya Versus The Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Another} Date of Order :: 23rd July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Deepak Sharma for the petitioner Mr. Vineet Kumar Pareek for the respondent no. 2 BY THE COURT: Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for early hearing of the writ petition which is allowed and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. Admit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction in the trial court for not removing her water tank and cooler fitted on the roof of the front room of the petitioner. The defendant filed its written statement. The issues were framed and case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff failed to adduce her evidence, therefore, trial court closed the plaintiff's evidence vide 2 order dated 20th September, 2007. Subsequently an application was moved by plaintiff to reopen her evidence but the same was also dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 28th January, 2008. The aforesaid two orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner remained sick during the period from 18th September, 2007 to 22nd September, 2007, therefore, she could not produce herself for her evidence. The medical certificate was also produced and it was prayed that her evidence be reopened and she should have been granted an opportunity. The learned court below has committed an illegality in not allowing the petitioner to adduce her evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders dated 20th September, 2007 as well as 28th January, 2008. It is correct that a sufficient opportunity was given to the plaintiff to adduce her evidence but the same was not produced, therefore, there was no option for the trial court except to close the evidence. However, after considering the 3 submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet in case one more opportunity is allowed to plaintiff to adduce her evidence at her own on a particulate date to be fixed by this Court on payment of cost. 8. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The plaintiff – petitioner is permitted to adduce her evidence at her own in the trial court on 11th & 12th August, 2008. The plaintiff will pay a cost of Rs. 3,000/- before adducing her evidence to defendant, failing which the plaintiff will not be allowed to adduce her evidence. 9. SO far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK