Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel Mr. V.K. Sharma has put in appearance for the respondent No. 2. Service is complete. At request, learned Counsel for the parties have been heard finally at this stage itself in view of the notice for final disposal issued in the matter.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed questioning the order dt. 23.10.2007 whereby the learned trial Court has proceeded to close the plaintiff 's evidence after noticing that five opportunities were granted in the past and even on the sixth occasion the plaintiff - -petitioner has failed to lead evidence. After attempting to argue the matter for some time in order to support the order impugned, learned Counsel Mr. V.K. Sharma appearing for the respondentdefendant, in all fairness, has not put much contention on the proposition that the petitioner - -plaintiff may be afforded one opportunity of leading evidence. It has been stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 11.01.2008, the petitioner has already deposited the amount of costs of Rs. 2,000/ - -; however, learned Counsel Mr. V.K. Sharma submits on instructions that such amount of costs was received by the counsel for the respondent only on 05.02.2008 though the petitioner was required to pay the same by 18.01.2008.
(3.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed earlier, this Court is of opinion that even if there had been some delay in deposit of the amount of costs as required by the order dt. 11.01.2008, such delay deserves to be condoned and the time for compliance deserves to be enlarged till the amount has been deposited/paid. Further, in view of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and for the learned Counsel for the respondent in all fairness not putting much emphasis on the order impugned, and rightly so, this Court is of opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dt. 23.10.2007 deserves to be set aside.;