Disposed

Mahaveer Prasad Dayama v. the Addi Civil Judge J DNO2

Rajasthan HC10 Sept 2008CW/6138/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for an additional witness, the court directed the defendant to produce Smt. Jebunisa for cross-examination on her affidavit on a pre-fixed date without a separate summons, barring any further witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendant-petitioner to produce Smt. Jebunisa for cross-examination on affidavit on the date fixed earlier; no separate summon; no further witnesses permitted.

Mahaveer Prasad Dayama Vs the Addi Civil… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6138/2007. Mahaveer Prasad Dayama. VERSUS

¶5

A.C.J. (J.D.) No.2, Sikar and Another.

¶6

10.09.2008.

¶7

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH

¶8

Mr.O.P.Mishra, for the petitioner. Mr.Dinesh Kala, for the respondent No.2.

¶9

¶10

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned trial court dated 23.07.2007 (Annexure-3) by which the application filed by the defendant-petitioner on 08.02.2007 has been dismissed.

¶11

The case was fixed for the defendant's evidence on 08.02.2007 and the defendant's witnesses DW-3 Lal Chand and DW-4 Sanwarmal were cross-examined on their affidavits. The third witness Ajmatulla remained absent and as such the trial court passed an order closing the evidence of the defendant, at which stage on 08.02.2007 itself the defendant moved an application along with an affidavit of the witness sought to be produced Smt.Jebunisa with the prayer that she may be permitted to be examined as a witness from the side of the defendant. This application has been dismissed by the learned trial court by the impugned order.

¶12

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent drew the attention of the court to the past conduct of the

¶13

¶14

petitioner from the ordersheets which have been filed before this court that right from September, 2006, the defendant has been delaying the production of the witness and seeking adjournment on this ground and, therefore, the application should be dismissed.

¶15

While it is true that the defendant's witnesses have been seeking adjournment from September, 2006 but the fact remains that the learned trial court granted the opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to examine the witnesses and on 08.02.2007 the defendant's witnesses DW-3 and DW-4 were present before the court and were cross-examined on their affidavits.

¶16

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the matter has been delayed on account of the pendency of this petition and if one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to bring the witness Smt.Jebunisa on the date which is fixed by the learned trial court in this behalf in the suit, the plaintiff would cross examine the witness Smt.Jebunisa on her affidavit which has already been filed along with the application on 08.02.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no other witness is required to be produced from the side of the defendant-petitioner.

¶17

In the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the defendantpetitioner shall bring the witness Smt.Jebunisa to be cross-examined on the affidavit filed by her on 08.02.2007 before the learned trial court and for this purpose no separate summon would be issued by the learned trial court. The witness shall be brought before

¶18

¶19

the learned trial court by the defendant himself on the date already fixed before the learned trial court. On the witness so being produced, the plaintiff-respondent shall have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness Smt.Jebunisa on her affidavit. It is made clear that the defendant-petitioner shall not be permitted to bring any other witness in the light of the order dated 08.02.2007.

¶20

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶21

(DALIP SINGH),J.

¶22

Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.

Mahaveer Prasad Dayama v. the Addi Civil Judge J DNO2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer Prasad Dayama v. the Addi Civil Judge J DNO2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sh.Shankar Udyog, Bundi Vs Nagar Palika, Bundi

Ashok Kumar Vs Suresh Chand Saini and Anr.

Ram Narayan Vs S,T Jhoomri and Ors.

Brijendra Vs the Presiding Officer Court of

Ramavtar Sharma Vs Mahaveer Prasad Sharma and Ors.

Bhagwati Prasad Vs Pratap Nagar Niwasi Hitkari Sa