- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19th November, 2012 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur closing the defence evidence of the petitioners defendants no. 8 and 9 (hereinafter the defendants).
(2.) HEARD Mr. Praveen Sharma counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N.K. Maloo Senior Counsel with Mr. Narendra Kumar Singhal as also Mr. V.K. Jain counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and perused the petition including the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19th November, 2012 indicates that defendants no. 8 and 9, petitioners herein in the suit laid in the year 2007 were granted as many as six opportunities for bringing in their defence evidence including the one under dated 11th October, 2012 when the defendants were put to notice of the next date being the last opportunity for the purpose. Yet, the evidence as required by the court was not led, consequent to which the impugned order has been passed.
(3.) ORDINARILY , this Court would not have interfered with an order closing the defendants' defence evidence after about a dozen opportunities. However, Mr. N.K. Maloo Senior Counsel with Mr. Narendra Kumar Singhal appearing for the plaintiff in a consolidated suit for specific performance has very fairly stated that the emphasis of the parties before the court is only on expeditious disposal of the suit and opposition to delays by resort to subterfuge such as routine adjournments and moving of frivolous applications as has been consistently done by the defendants herein. Senior Counsel submits that he would have no objection to the impugned order being set aside and the defendants herein granted one single opportunity for leading their defence evidence in the suit. It is stated that the matter is coming up before the trial court today and the defendants should be bound down to appear before the trial court and lead their evidence on the next date of hearing.;