- (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26th May, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Alwar, gainsaid the petitioner to lead evidence on the amended issue. A very short question, which springs up for consideration in the instant writ petition is, as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner -defendant is required to lead evidence on the amended issue no.4, wherein the word 13171 -1 has been deleted and in place of it, the word kle has been substituted. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is revealed that the respondent -plaintiff came with a categorical averment that the suit premises was not only required for the purpose of income by way of running Paying Guest House, but the same was also needed for the residence of the respondents -plaintiff and running the office for his son Jaideep, who was Chartered Accountant. This fact is not found to have been controverted by the petitioner -defendant in the written statement of defence. The trial court is found to have dealt with this issue of course in short, but it suggests that the petitioner -defendant had already cross -examined the witness on the question of the need of the suit premises for the purpose of residence.
(2.) THE main thrust of argument, put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent -plaintiff is that since there was no issue with regard to the need of the suit premises for the purpose of residence, there was no question for the petitioner to cross -examine the witnesses produced by the respondent -plaintiff on this ground. Even if it is presumed that the witnesses of the respondent -plaintiff were subjected to cross -examination on this ground, the right to cross -examination on the amended issue cannot be taken away by the court. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner defendant is found to have carried force and he deserves to be afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff on this ground alone.
(3.) IN view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. since the suit has been posted for final arguments and the same has been pending since 2002, the respondents plaintiff is directed to produce all his witnesses who had been examined earlier in the court on the next date of hearing and the learned counsel for the petitioner defendant is directed to cross examine them on the said issue on that very same day. No further adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties for the same. The parties shall face the legal consequences. consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, no order is required to be passed in the stay application, hence, the same stands disposed of, accordingly.;