- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12-9-2012 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Beawar closing defence evidence of petitioner-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') in a suit for ejectment under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of the petition including the order-sheets of the trial court and the impugned order dated 12-9-2012. A bare perusal of the order-sheets of the trial court commencing 30-11-2011 and ending 12-9-2012 indicates that the defendant had been granted several opportunity for bringing in all defence evidence as he wished on record of the trial court. It appears that the defendant was remiss in expeditiously bringing his defence evidence before the trial court and apart from several adjournments he also moved various applications -apparently frivolous -in the course of defence evidence, which to my mind appear to have been moved with the intent to delay the adjudication of the suit. The fact however remains that when the matter was listed before the trial court on 12-9-2012 two witnesses of defendant were examined upto 3.35 PM. Thereafter the trial court required at least one of the two remaining witnesses i.e. Deepak or Raju who had filed their affidavits in evidence to be present for cross examination on the same day. But the counsel for the defendant was not able to comply with the direction of the trial court. Consequently, the trial court not only closed the evidence of one of the two witnesses -it had required to be present for cross examination, but the entire defence evidence. The matter was posted for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff on 1-10-2012.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant submits that the order dated 12-9-2012 indicates that the said order has been passed by the trial court apparently under annoyance by the failure of defendant in bringing in one of the two remaining witnesses on the said date even after 3.35 PM as directed. It is submitted that as only one of the two remaining defence witnesses were required to be present by the trial court on 12-9-2012, on the defendant's failure the trial court ought not to have closed defence evidence altogether including that of the other witnesses -as if as a penalty. Counsel submits that the suit relates to the year of 2007 and the plaintiff himself took about four years time to lay his evidence. It is submitted that the present case is not a case where there was any inordinate and unconscionable delay by the defendant, and an opportunity ought to have been granted at least till next dates shortest of and if warranted on costs. Counsel submits that closure of defence evidence altogether is harsh in the facts of the case.;