Jagdish vs Ramsahay and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—Mr. Umesh Vyas for the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the orders dated 05.07.2010 and 03.08.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Bandikui, Headquarter Dausa, whereby the learned trial Court has closed the evidence of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court.

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent submitted a suit for declaration and cancellation of a registered sale-deed. The defendant-petitioner filed his written statement. After framing of the issues, the plaintiff-respondent produced his evidence. The matter was fixed for defendant- petitioner''s evidence on 30.03.2010. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for 15.04.2010 and 15.05.2010. But the defendant- petitioner did not appear before the learned trial court on the above-mentioned dates. According to the petitioner, on 05.07.2010 due to his illness, he could not appear before the trial Court. On 05.07.2010, the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner-defendant. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2010, the petitioner moved an application u/s 151 CPC for re-opening of the evidence. The respondent filed reply to the said application. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 03.08.2010, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be given ample opportunity to present his defence. On 05.7.2010, since the petitioner was ill, he could not appear before the Court and was not in a position to inform his counsel about his inability to appear before the Court. Despite the fact that he had submitted ample evidence to prove his inability, vide order dated 03.08.2010 his application u/s 151 C.P.C., has been dismissed.

Heard the learned Counsel and perused the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that on 05.07.2010, the petitioner had merely submitted a copy of the prescription written by doctor, and a copy of the receipt of the drug store from where the medicines were bought. The petitioner did not submit any medical certificate of a doctor to make out a case that he was unable to attend the Court. Neither the prescription of a doctor, nor a receipt of a drug store is sufficient to establish the fact that the petitioner was unable to attend the Court due to illness. The lack of medical certificate is precisely the reason given by the learned Judge for dismissing the petitioner''s application. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders dated 05.07.2010 and 03.08.2010.

Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.