- (1.)The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is being invoked for setting aside the order dtd. 29/3/2016 (for brevity 'impugned order') passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu (for brevity 'trial court'), in case titled Smt. Sureshta Gupta vs. Prithvi Raj Goel.
(2.)Before adverting to the grounds urged in the petition for quashment of the impugned order a brief background of the facts as stated in the petition reveals that a civil suit for recovery of compensation on account of arrears of rent qua a Shop situated at Amar Market, Raghunath Bazar, Jammu as well as possession thereof came to be filed by the plaintiff petitioner herein against the defendant-respondent herein.
(3.)It is being stated that upon filing of written statement to the said suit by the defendant-respondent herein, the trial court framed issues based upon the pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff-petitioner herein states to have got the knowledge that her counsel despite having availed number of opportunities did not inform her about of leading evidence in the case and that upon engaging a new counsel on 19/2/2016, the trial court directed the plaintiff-petitioner herein to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000.00 earlier imposed upon the plaintiff-petitioner herein. The plaintiff petitioner herein is stated to have filed affidavits of her witnesses on 29/3/2016, but could not file evidence affidavit of her person on account of ailment and being bed ridden. The trial court on 29/3/2016, thus, is stated to have closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner herein in terms of the impugned order.