In a civil suit for money recovery, the High Court of Rajasthan permitted the petitioner to lead evidence, subject to depositing Rs. 5,000/- as cost and appearing witnesses on the next hearing.
Directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- and produce witnesses on next hearing to lead evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:12540]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4126/2024
Ankur Nolakha S/o Tarachand Ji, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 53, Jawahar Nagar, Gokul Wadi, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Heeralal S/o Khemchand Ji Rohera, R/o 68, First Floor, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380002.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dixit Panwar for Mr. Akshat Verma
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
15/03/2024
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited prayer that it may be permitted to lead evidence on depositing the cost within a particular time frame. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner-plaintiff had been granted sufficient opportunities in order to lead his evidence, however, the petitioner’s evidence has been closed vide order dated 12.09.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since the matter is at the stage of final hearing and is scheduled to be listed on 04.04.2024, thus, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if the evidence of the petitioner is not taken on record.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner-plaintiff to deposit a cost to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-defendant and is also directed to keep its witness(es) ready along with their
[2024:RJ-JD:12540]
[CW-4126/2024]
(2 of 2)
affidavits on the next date of hearing for their examination/crossexamination and upon doing so, the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to lead his evidence in “ Money Recovery Suit No.16/2017 (Ankur Nolakha Vs. Heera Lal) .
With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Stay petition as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
292-Dharmendra Rakhecha & Ajay/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to lead evidence after it was previously closed.
Whether a cost should be deposited by the petitioner to allow the evidence-in-chief to be recorded.
Ankur Nolakha
Heeralal S/o Khemchand Ji Rohera
Nupur Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
