Pappu Shah and Others vs The Addl. District Judge and Others

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—These two writ petitions have been filed by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession and grant of injunction (C.O. No. 30/2007) as pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Nagaur respectively against the order dated 13.03.2008 (CWP No. 2871/2008) whereby the learned Trial Court refused to extend further opportunity of evidence to the plaintiffs and closed their evidence; and against the order dated 17.04.2008 (CWP No. 2872/2008) whereby the learned Trial Court while refusing to reopen the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners, also declined to extend opportunity to the counsel for the plaintiffs for cross-examination of the defendants'' witnesses, closed their right of cross-examination, and set the matter for final hearing.

It is contended that the plaintiffs-petitioners would be denied adequate opportunity of hearing and would suffer substantial injury if the impugned orders are allowed to stand.

It is submitted that the plaintiffs are sincerely prosecuting their case and on 13.03.2008 three witnesses, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 were produced who were cross-examined by the defendants and then, time was sought for production of other witnesses that was denied by the learned Trial Court taking an extremely strict and unjustified view of the matter. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not been justified in refusing the application for re-opening of the evidence in its order dated 17.04.2008 particularly when counsel for the plaintiffs stated her personal difficulty wherefor other witnesses could not be produced on behalf of the plaintiffs on the earlier occasion. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has taken an extremely harsh and unjustified view of the matter on 17.04.2008 in closing even the right of cross- examination when affidavits in evidence of the defendants'' were supplied and an opportunity for cross-examination was sought that could have been extended without causing any prejudice to the other side.

Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court expresses its reservation on the submissions sought to be made. Even if the learned Trial Court has taken strict view of the matter on 17.04.2008 and passed an order refusing to grant adjournment for the purpose of cross-examination of the defendants'' witnesses, after passing of the said order, it was required on the part of the plaintiffs to have proceeded with cross-examination. The very fact that after passing of the order by the learned Trial Court on 17.04.2008 the plaintiffs chose not to cross-examine the witnesses of the defendants, it gives raise to a serious question if plaintiffs were co-operating with the process of law and the proceedings in the Court?

This Court in the case of Jagdish Candra v. A.D.J. (F.T.) No. 2, Bhilwara and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6672/2007, decided on 28.02.2008, while dealing with a situation where the witness was refused to be cross-examined after time prayed for was refused by the Trial Court, observed thus:

The refusal to cross-examine after the learned trial court declined the adjournment and directed to proceed with the cross-examination, apart from giving rise to serious questions on propriety, left no option with the learned trial court except to find that the defendant- petitioner was not interested in cross-examination of the said witness.

It is also noticed in the present case that on 13.03.2008, though at the first the learned Trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiffs but reviewed such order that very day at the request of counsel for the plaintiffs and took evidence of three witnesses who were produced before the Court.

On the next date i.e., 17.04.2008 even when an application was moved for permission to lead evidence, no witness was present as has been noticed by the learned Trial Court. Then, as noticed above, when the learned Trial Court declined to grant adjournment for the purpose of crossexamination of defendant''s witnesses, the plaintiffs have chosen not to cross-examine the witnesses at all. In such a situation, the learned Trial Court was left with no alternative but to close the evidence.

Without going into any other aspect of the matter, in view of the fact that the plaintiffs did not put co-operation with the Court on 17.04.2008, this Court does not feel inclined to consider any interference in these writ petitions.

However, this Court has pointed out in the aforesaid case of Jagdish Chandra (supra) that,-

Yet and however, the rules of procedure are intended to be and are applied by the courts for determination of the matters in controversy on merits and any mistake or error or indiscretion on the part of anybody appearing before the court has no co-relation nor has any bearing on appropriate application of the principles of natural justice and objective consideration of the matter in issue. In this matter, even when the trial court closed the cross-examination of the said witness, which it did rightly so, if the petitioner yet had any bona fide proposition to state, nothing prevented him from making an appropriate application to the learned trial court, who would have, this Court has no doubt, dealt with the same in accordance with law. Even now, if the petitioner makes a bona fide prayer and comes out with the propositions that are in conformity with the honour to the rule of law and are conducive to the expeditious disposal of the matter on merits and satisfy the court concerned of his not adopting dilatory methodology, this Court, again, has not an iota of doubt that the trial court would dispassionately deal with the prayers and propositions, if adequately presented by the petitioner in accordance with law and in the manner befitting the honour of rule of law. However, so far the present writ petition is concerned, this Court does not find anything to interfere and would, of course, not like to make any other comment.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the observations as made by this Court in Jagdish Chandra''s case, the petitioners shall stand advised to move a proper application before the Court concerned. This Court would not like to make any comment in that regard except reiterating that there is no doubt that the Trial Court would dispassionately deal with the prayers and propositions, if adequately presented by the petitioners in accordance with law and in the manner befitting the honour of rule of law. So far the present petitions are concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere.

The writ petitions are rejected.

The writ petition is dismissed vide order made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2871/2008 (Pappu Shah and Ors. v. The Additional District Judge, Nagaur and Ors.).