- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.11.12 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 9, Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 17/03 (210/03), whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff seeking specific performance of the agreement has been decreed and the appellant-defendant has been directed to execute the sale-deed in favour of the respondent and also to handover the physical possession of the suit premises.
(2.) DURING the course of arguments at the admission stage, it had transpired that the trial court had not decided the issue No. 5-ka which was subsequently added in view of the application made by the appellant-defendant. The said issue reads as under :- "...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]..." It also transpired during the course of arguments that the trial court had closed the right of the appellant-defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff i.e. PW 1 Mukesh Pareek as per the order dated 8.1.08. According to the learned counsel Mr. Prahlad Sharma for the appellant, the said order dated 8.1.08 is illegal and deserves to be set aside. He also submitted that the appellant is ready to pay the cost as may be directed by the court.
(3.) THE learned counsel Mr. Anudyuti Maitra for the respondent has fairly submitted that the Issue No. 5-ka has not been decided by the trial court. As regards the denial of opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff, he has submitted that the heavy cost be imposed on the appellant-defendant if the court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the appellant.;