- (1.) Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, senior advocate assisted by Sri Nipun Singh for the Petitioners and Sri Sumit Daga for the Respondents.
(2.) Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under: Suit was filed by the Respondents herein seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants-Petitioners from interfering in the 'rasta' shown by letters ABCDEF and further not to interrupt in the ingress and egress of Plaintiffs-Respondents as well as villagers over the said 'rasta'. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application dated 26.2.2008 was moved by the Defendants-Petitioners with the prayer that they could not file evidence in the form of affidavit of one of their witness Saukat as he was ill and therefore, he may be permitted to be produced as a witness. Trial court rejected the application. On 27.2.2008 an application numbered 88C was moved by the Plaintiffs-Respondents with the prayer to permit Amin Commissioner Vinod Kumar as witness. Vide order dated 15.3.2008 trial court allowed the said application. Against which, the Defendants-Petitioners went up in revision, which was also dismissed on 20.3.2008. Defendants-Petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 17371 of 2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 8.4.2008 with the observation that once the evidence of the witness is recorded, the Defendants-Petitioners shall have right to cross-examine him. The Defendants-Petitioners also filed a revision challenging the order dated 26.2.2008 by which their application to produce Saukat as witness was rejected. The revision was dismissed on the ground that the Petitioners have already challenged the order before this Court in Writ Petition No. 17371 of 2008. The order was again challenged by the Defendants-Petitioners before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 837 of 2008 which also came to be dismissed by this Court on 9.9.2008. In pursuance to the order dated 15.3.2008 affirmed by this Court vide order dated 8.4.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 17371 of 2008 Amin Commissioner appeared as a witness and his statement was recorded on 27.11.2008. Thereafter, an application dated 29.11.2008 was moved by the Defendants-Petitioners with the prayer that they may be given a chance to produce their witness in rebuttal. Trial court vide order dated 26.3.2009 dismissed the application. The Defendants-Petitioners went up in revision which was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2009. Aggrieved, the Petitioners have approached this Court.
(3.) Both the courts below rejected the prayer of the Petitioners to produce witness in rebuttal on the ground that their application numbered 87C for additional evidence has already been rejected and the order has been confirmed by this Court and prayer in the application being similar to that of the earlier application, which has already been rejected, the application is not maintainable.;