- (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 21st August, 2007, as also the order dated 2nd February, 2008, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, closed the right of the petitioners-defendants to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Section 151 of CPC, respectively.
(2.) Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that during the pendency of the recovery suit, the affidavits of the plaintiff's witnesses came to be filed in the Court, but the petitioners-defendants kept on seeking repeated adjournments. The learned trial Court many a times granted adjournments simplicitor, but on 19th March, 2007, he was granted granted adjournment at the cost of Rs.200/-. The learned counsel for the petitioners, even on that date, failed to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses. Again on 15th May, 2007 one opportunity was granted to the petitioners-defendants to cross examine the witnesses, but they did not do so. Thereafter, on 18th August, 2007 again the learned trial Court granted adjournment at the cost of Rs.150/- and the case was fixed for recording the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses on 21st August, 2007. On that date too, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the same story and implored the Court to grant one more adjournment, so as to cross examine the witnesses. The learned trial Court did not find any good ground to grant any adjournment and finally closed the right of the petitioners-defendants to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses. It is also noticed that thereafter, the defendant's evidence was also recorded and after an expiry of approximately six months, the petitioners-defendants again filed an application under Section 151 of CPC, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and implored that in the interest of justice, the petitioners-defendants may be granted one and the last opportunity to cross examine the said witnesses.
(3.) Learned counsel canvassed that on 21st August, 2007, he had come to the High Court to attend a case and when reached the trial Court at 2.30 PM, it was found that his right to cross examine the witnesses had been closed. It is surprising that the learned counsel has again and again insisted upon his explanation about the inability for not appearing in the Court only on one day, but why did he keep on seeking adjournment on the earlier ten dates of hearings, no account has been given about the same. The application filed under Section 151 of CPC is found to have been dismissed by the learned trial Court on 21st August, 2008. Thereafter, a period of four years has expired, but the suit is still pending and now, it is said to have been fixed for hearing final arguments. Already an unreasonable delay has been caused in the trial of the suit. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Ample opportunity was given to the petitioners-defendants to cross examine the said witnesses, who had appeared on almost all the dates of hearing. The impugned orders are found to be just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and do not suffer from any infirmity. On the other hand, the writ petition is found to be totally devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed.;