Sarla Mathur and Another vs Ravi Prakash and Others

P.S. Asopa, J.

With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.04.2007 (Annex. 1) and order dated 01.09.2007 (Annex.2) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sikar in Suit No. 27/1999 (Ravi Prakash Vs. Suresh Chandra) and has sought the direction form this Court to allow the application filed by the respondent before the trial Court for recording the evidence of the defendant-petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an affidavit of Tara Chand, which was marked as DW2 but his evidence was closed and consequently, the plaintiff-respondent could not cross-examine. The evidence of Tara Chand is necessary as he is a relevant witness about the possession of the property in dispute.

Counsel for the respondent submits that the evidence was rightly closed but the Court may pass appropriate order.

I have gone through the record of the petition and further considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the both the parties.

I am of the view that closing of the evidence and its not reopening may cause injustice to the petitioner. In the interest of justice, the orders dated 10.04.2007 (Annex. 1) and 01.09.2007 (Annex.2) are quashed and set aside.

In the result, the present writ petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to allow the witness DW2 Tara Chand to be cross examined by the plaintiff-respondent.