Quashed

Smt Jaspal Kaur W/O Late Shri Navtej Singh v. Surendra Singh Sahani S/O Shri Rajendra Singh Sahni

Rajasthan HC4 Nov 2022CW/5619/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan disposed of a writ petition petitioning against an order closing evidence in a civil suit due to failure to lead evidence. The court quashed the order, granting the petitioners one opportunity to lead evidence subject to payment of costs and informing the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted one opportunity to lead entire evidence after informing respondent and payment of Rs.15,000 cost to respondent.

Smt Jaspal Kaur W/O Late Shri Navtej Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5619/2022

¶3

Smt Jaspal Kaur W/o Late Shri Navtej Singh, Aged About 55 Years, D/o Dhola Singh

¶4

Simran, D/o Late Shri Navtej Singh

¶5

Yaspreet D/o Late Shri Navtej Singh, Minor Daughter Through Natural Guardian Her (Mother Applicant No. 1) R/o Main Dhuriroad, Sangroor, Punjab.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Surendra Singh Sahani S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Sahni, R/o Rajendra Vila, Rubber Factory Road, Bheemganjmandi, Kota Junction, Kota.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶12

Order

¶13

04/11/2022

¶14

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.1, North, Kota Civil Suit No.103/15 whereby, evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs has been closed.

¶15

The relevant facts in brief are that petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction wherein, when after availing a number of opportunities, they did not lead evidence, their right was closed vide order dated 03.01.2022, impugned herein.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although, they were given a number of opportunities, but, no evidence

¶17

(2 of 3) [CW-5619/2022]

¶18

could be led either on account of illness of the petitioner no.1 or in the wake of COVID-19 situation. He submits that petitioners may be afforded only one opportunity to lead their entire evidence subject to payment of a reasonable cost lest their valuable and substantial right in the immovable property may get adversely affected.

¶19

Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, the material on record, the nature of controversy involved in the matter and to advance substantial justice, this writ petition is being disposed of in the following terms without issuing notice to the respondents to obviate further delay and not to en-burden the respondents from unnecessary litigation expenses:-

¶20

“ 1. The order dated 03.01.2022 is quashed and set aside.

¶21

2.The petitioners are granted one opportunity to lead their entire evidence either on the next date or within such time as fixed by the learned trial Court.

¶22

The aforesaid opportunity shall be available only after the

¶23

respondent/defendant is duly informed about this order and affording him an opportunity of cross examination, if he so desires since, post 03.01.2022, ex-parte proceeding has been drawn against him.

¶24

The aforesaid opportunity is subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000 by the petitioners to the respondent/defendant.”

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-5619/2022]

¶27

If the respondent feels aggrieved by this order, he is at liberty to move a recalling application.

¶28

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶29

CHHAYA AWASTHI /66

Smt Jaspal Kaur W/O Late Shri Navtej Singh v. Surendra Singh Sahani S/O Shri Rajendra Singh Sahni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jaspal Kaur W/O Late Shri Navtej Singh v. Surendra Singh Sahani S/O Shri Rajendra Singh Sahni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Narayan Meena Son of Shri Gullaram Meena Vs Gopal Son of Fatyaram Meena

Sarita Nareda Wife of Dayaram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Ragsaa Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Seema D/O Jagdeesh W/O Vijay Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Anjanay Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Niranjan Sharma, Son of Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan