R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the orders dated 27.04.2009 and dated 05.12.2009, both passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the petitioner has approached this Court. By the former order dated 27.04.2009, the learned Judge has closed the right to cross -examine the plaintiff and by the latter order dated 05.12.2009, the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application for granting an opportunity for cross -examining the plaintiff.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondent No. 2, Tahiraddeen, along with the other respondent Nos. 3 to 7 had filed a civil suit against the petitioner for cancelling the sale deed dated 19.01.2000, registered on 20.01.2000 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the written statement. Thereafter, the issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 25.04.2009. On that day, the petitioner filed an application for translation of passport of the plaintiff in Hindi. After hearing both the parties, the learned Judge dismissed the said application and fixed the case on 27.04.2009 for cross -examination of the plaintiff. On 27.04.2009, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was absent and his junior again sought time for cross -examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's counsel objected the same and stated that the plaintiff will out of the country on 30.04.2009. Vide order dated 27.04.2009, the learned Judge closed the right of the petitioner to cross -examine the plaintiff on the ground that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner for cross -examining the plaintiff and fixed the case on 06.07.2009 for the evidence of the defendant. On 06.07.2009, the counsel for the petitioner filed an application for granting an opportunity for cross -examining the plaintiff. However, vide order dated 05.12.2009, the said application was dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. S.C. Purohit, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that while the plaintiff was granted a number of dates by the learned trial court, the learned trial court has closed the right of the petitioner to cross -examine the plaintiff in hot haste. Thus, the learned Judge has not maintained parity between the plaintiff and the defendant -petitioner. Secondly, merely because of the absence of the counsel for the defendant -petitioner, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Thirdly, the right to cross -examine the plaintiff is a valuable right which could not be denied in a mechanical manner. Lastly, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reason for closing the right to cross -examine the plaintiff.
(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.;