Sharwan Lal Kumawat vs Ramji Lal Jakhotia

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected an application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for reopening his evidence.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents No. 1 and 2. According to him, the respondents No. 1 and 2 had let out a shop to the petitioner, situated in Kishangarh Rainwal. Initially, the shop was rented out in 1981 for a rental value of Rs. 600/- per month. According to the petitioner, he has already paid Rs. 14,200/- towards ''Pagari''. It was agreed between the parties that when the shop would be vacated, the said amount of Rs. 14,200/- would be refunded. According to the petitioner, he continuously paid the rental amount till February, 2005. However, after February, 2005, the respondents refused to accept the amount. Therefore, the rental amount was sent for next two months through Money Order which has not been returned. But, according to the petitioner, the respondents are trying to evict him from the suit shop through illegal means. Hence, the petitioner filed the suit.

The respondents filed their written statement and denied the contents of the plaint. On 04.03.2006, the learned Judge framed the issues. The petitioner submitted a list of witnesses which included the name of one, Mr. Pokharmal. However, according to the petitioner, as Mr. Pokharmal had gone to Maharashtra for his livelihood, he could not be produced as a witness. Subsequently when the petitioner learnt that Mr. Pokharmal is likely to return back to the village, he moved an application for reopening his evidence and for permitting him to examine Mr. Pokharmal as a witness on his behalf. However, by order dated 03.01.2014, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this court.

Mr. V.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that the court should have been more patient and should have granted the petitioner right to examine a person who was already named in the list of witnesses and whose affidavit had already been filed. However, in hot haste the learned Magistrate has denied the right to produce his evidence. Therefore, a grave injustice has been committed with the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order as well as considered the order-sheets dated 13.05.2010, 26.05.2012 and 16.10.2013, produced by the petitioner before this court.

A bare perusal of the material available on record clearly reveals that the petitioner is not as innocent as he pretends. According to the order-sheet dated 13.05.2010, ample opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce his witness. However, he failed to do so. Therefore, by order dated 13.05.2010, the learned Magistrate had closed his evidence. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC. By order dated 26.05.2012, considering the fact that on 13.05.2010 the petitioner had fallen ill, after imposing a cost of Rs. 500/-, the learned Magistrate had reopened the petitioner''s evidence and granted him time to produce his witness. But despite the fact that a cost had been imposed upon him, on 16.10.2013 the petitioner again failed to produce his witness. Therefore, by order dated 16.10.2013, his evidence was again closed. Even thereafter the petitioner moved an application for reopening of his evidence, and for examining Mr. Pokharmal as a witness. It is this application which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the facts narrated above clearly reveals that from 2010 to 2013, the learned Magistrate had given ample opportunities to the petitioner to produce his witnesses. But he has singularly failed to do so. Needless to say, a trial court is not expected to wait endlessly for a party to produce his witnesses. Even after imposing a cost, the petitioner was given a chance to produce his witness. But even then, he did not improve his conduct and did not produce his witness as is obvious from the order dated 16.10.2013. Hence, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for reopening his evidence and for examining Mr. Pokharmal as a witness.

For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any illegality, or perversity in the impugned order dated 04.02.2014. This petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.