- (1.) By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") have challenged the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") in civil suit No.39/2013 whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application dated 23.07.2015 filed by the plaintiffs for opening their evidence.
(2.) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the matter is basically related to the admissibility of the agreement to sell for which the matter remained pending for adjudication in different Courts from 2015 to 2017. He further submits that subsequent to the impugned order dated 27.10.2017, stamp duty on the impounded agreement to sell dated 14.11.2011 has been paid to the Department. He also submits that in view of the due stamp duty now having been paid on the agreement to sell in question and the said agreement to sell being thus rendered admissible in evidence, the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 closing the plaintiffs' evidence liable to be quashed and set-aside. If the plaintiffs' evidence is not opened, entire purpose of paying the stamp duty would be frustrated and it would cause grave injustice to the plaintiffs.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') resisted the prayer and contended that plaintiffs were not at all interested to lead evidence rather their sole object was to delay the pending proceedings. He further submits that the Hon'ble High Court had directed to decide the matter within a year. The Court fixed the date 8.7.2015 for taking evidence of the plaintiffs. On the said date, neither the plaintiffs nor their witness/s were present before the Court below nor any application was filed by them with that regard. The plaintiffs placed wrong facts before the Court below and the party who places wrong facts before the Court is not entitled to get any relief. On that basis, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application dated 23.7.2015 and no interference is required by this Court.;