Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners -defendants, challenging the order dt. 09.05.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, Distt. Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 5/2002, whereby the trial Court has closed the right of the petitioners -defendants to lead the evidence. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, and perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the petitioners -defendants after the closure of evidence by the respondent -plaintiff, had filed two affidavits, one of the defendant Mahendra Agarwal, and the other of the witness Sajjan Agarwal on 10.01.2012. As per the copy of the order sheets, produced by the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent -plaintiff, therefore on 10.01.2012 had sought time for cross examination of the said witnesses, and the Court had kept the matter on 14.03.2012. It is true that on 14.03.2012, neither the defendants nor their witnesses, nor his Advocate had remained present in the Court and the Court had granted last opportunity to them by fixing the matter on 09.05.2012. However, it appears that on 09.05.2012, the defendant Mahendra Kumar Agarwal i.e. the present petitioner No. 1 was present before the trial Court, but was not cross examined, and the trial Court closed the right of the petitioners -defendants to lead the evidence as the other witness was not present. The Court fails to understand as to why the defendant Mahendra Kumar was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondent -plaintiff when he was present in the Court. The impugned order is silent as to why the said defendant was not cross examined. Merely because the other witness was not present, the right of the petitioners to lead evidence could not be closed, more particularly when the petitioner No. 1 was very much present for cross examination. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not appear to be just and proper. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set -aside. However, the petitioners -defendants are directed to keep the said petitioner -defendant Mahendra Kumar and the other witnesses present for cross examination on the date that may be fixed by the trial Court. With theses observations, the present petition stands allowed.;