R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 12.04.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Neem -Ka -Thana, District Sikar, whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application for cross -examination of the defendant No. 1. (the respondent No. 2, before this Court), the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a civil suit wherein the petitioner had alleged that on a land measuring 63' 6" X 46' 6", upon which the petitioner had constructed a house, there existed a corner which was the joint property between the petitioner and the defendants -respondents Nos. 2 to 5. About forty years ago the piece of land was divided between the petitioner and the respondents. Certain portion of the land fell in the petitioner's share. However, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 wanted to encroach upon the land and wanted to break the platform (Chabutra) and the construction made thereon. Therefore, the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 submitted their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. According to them, the land on the southern part belongs to them and the petitioner had no right to the said land. During the course of trial, after changing the Counsel by the petitioner, the new Counsel discovered that material facts and pleas which should have been taken in the plaint were conspicuously missing. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for amending the plaint. However, vide order dated 22.05.2009, the said application was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application. However, vide order dated 04.08.2009, the said review application, too, was dismissed. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by both the orders, namely orders dated 22.05.2009 and 04.08.2009, he challenged them before this Court by filing a writ petition, namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11460/2009 Jagdish Prasad v. The Civil Judge, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar. The respondents raised a preliminary objection in the said writ petition claiming that the petitioner could not have challenged two separate orders by filing a single writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to confine his arguments with regard to the order dated 22.05.2009. Vide order dated 16.03.2010, this Court quashed and set aside the order dated 22.05.2009 and also quashed the order dated 04.08.2009 as far as it related to the rejection of the review application. This Court was further pleased to set aside the order of cost of Rs. 500/ - which was imposed upon the petitioner by the trial court.
(3.) IN pursuance of the order dated 16.03.2010, the petitioner sought the necessary amendment in the plaint and also sought an opportunity to cross -examine the defendant No. 1 (the respondent No. 2 before this Court). Vide order dated 12.04.2010, the learned trial court has observed that vide order dated 04.08.2009, it had decided three different applications, namely the application for review of the order dated 22.05.2009, an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC for taking certain documents on record, and an application filed by the respondents for imposing cost on the petitioner for not cross -examining the defendants. According to the learned court, while rejecting the application for taking certain documents on record, the court had imposed a cost of Rs. 1500/ - and while accepting the application filed by the respondents the court had imposed a cost of Rs. 250/ -. According to the learned trial court, while this Court had merely quashed and set aside the cost imposed by the trial court namely Rs. 500/ - while rejecting the review petition, this Court did not quash and set aside the other costs imposed by the learned trial court totalling Rs. 1750/ -. Since the petitioner did not pay the cost of Rs. 1750/ -, he was debarred from cross -examining respondent No. 2.;