- (1.) THIS petition for writ is preferred to challenge the order dated 27.08.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Jalore, Camp Bhinmal in Civil Original Suit No.7/2004 (3/1996).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff- respondent Mr. Laxmikant S/o Mr. Gaurishankar preferred a suit for specific performance against the defendants either to perform the oral agreement or to refund the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with adequate interest that was said to be taken from him by the respondents as advance. In the suit aforesaid, an application was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent on 13.08.2008 for permitting him to place certain documents on record. As per the averments contained in the application dated 13.08.2008, the counsel failed to place on record the documents concerned because of some error on his part. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn in by the advocate himself. The application came up for orders before the court on 22.08.2008. The court heard the arguments of the parties on application and fixed the same for pronouncement of order dated 27.08.2008. Suffice to mention here that as per order- sheet dated 22.08.2008, the counsel for the defendant was not desirous to file any reply to the application. The reply to the application then was filed by the defendant-petitioner on 25.08.2008, however, the court refused to take into consideration the same on the count that on 22.08.2008 the matter was already heard and on that day the defendant specifically stated that he is not interested to file any reply to the application. The reply to the application on the insistence of the defendant was taken on record. On 27.08.2008 learned trial court accepted the application with specific assertion that the counsel for the plaintiff is a seasoned lawyer having practice of about 25 years and as such, he would have not committed any error intentionally. Condoning the error of the advocate, the trial court permitted the plaintiff to place the documents on record with a cost of Rs.500/-. While challenging the order aforesaid, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact, the same counsel preferred an application of same nature on 18.08.2000 seeking permission to place certain documents on record and in that application too, he averred that due to his error certain documents could not be placed on record. That application was also allowed and thereafter in the year 2008 again a similar kind of application was filed. It is asserted that the court should have taken into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner before pronouncement of the order on 27.08.2008.
(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced.;