Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession and grant of injunction (C.O. No. 30/2007) as pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Nagaur respectively against the order dated 13.03.2008 (CWP No. 2871/2008) whereby the learned Trial Court refused to extend further opportunity of evidence to the plaintiffs and closed their evidence; and against the order dated 17.04.2008 (CWP No. 2872/2008) whereby the learned Trial Court while refusing to reopen the evidence of the plaintiffs -petitioners, also declined to extend opportunity to the counsel for the plaintiffs for cross -examination of the defendants' witnesses, closed their right of cross -examination, and set the matter for final hearing.
(2.) IT is contended that the plaintiffs -petitioners would be denied adequate opportunity of hearing and would suffer substantial injury if the impugned orders are allowed to stand. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are sincerely prosecuting their case and on 13.03.2008 three witnesses, PW -7, PW -8 and PW -9 were produced who were cross -examined by the defendants and then, time was sought for production of other witnesses that was denied by the learned Trial Court taking an extremely strict and unjustified view of the matter. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not been justified in refusing the application for re -opening of the evidence in its order dated 17.04.2008 particularly when counsel for the plaintiffs stated her personal difficulty wherefor other witnesses could not be produced on behalf of the plaintiffs on the earlier occasion. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has taken an extremely harsh and unjustified view of the matter on 17.04.2008 in closing even the right of cross - examination when affidavits in evidence of the defendants' were supplied and an opportunity for cross -examination was sought that could have been extended without causing any prejudice to the other side.
(3.) HAVING examined the matter in its totality, this Court expresses its reservation on the submissions sought to be made. Even if the learned Trial Court has taken strict view of the matter on 17.04.2008 and passed an order refusing to grant adjournment for the purpose of cross -examination of the defendants' witnesses, after passing of the said order, it was required on the part of the plaintiffs to have proceeded with cross -examination. The very fact that after passing of the order by the learned Trial Court on 17.04.2008 the plaintiffs chose not to cross -examine the witnesses of the defendants, it gives raise to a serious question if plaintiffs were co -operating with the process of law and the proceedings in the Court?;