- (1.) PETITIONER , by way of filing the present writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 6.1.2012 and 27.3.2012 both passed by the learned Munsif, Lohardaga in Title Suit No. 18 of 2007, whereby court-below refused to grant further time to adduce evidence and closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner and further rejected the recall petition dated 17.2.2012 respectively. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned orders and other material placed on record.
(2.) ON perusal of the order sheet, it transpires that the matter was kept for the purpose of recording of evidence of the defendant on 19.11.2011 by the order dated 14.10.2011. Thereafter on 19.11.2011, one witness has been examined on behalf of the defendant and cross examination was also conducted by the plaintiff on the same day. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 3.12.2011. On 3.12.2011 , learned counsel for the defendant sought time for examination of other witnesses. Considering the request made by the defendant, the matter was kept on 23.12.2011. It appears that on 23.12.2011 both the counsel for the parties were present but the matter was adjourned to 6.1.2012. On perusal of the order dated 6.1.2012 , it appears that stage of defendant evidence was ordered to be closed as the defendant could not produce witness on the said date. It reveals from the papers that after commencement of the defendant evidence on 14.10.2011 only one witness has been examined prior to 6.1.2012 and the duration also indicates that there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the present petitioner-defendant in adducing further evidence. This Court is of the view that reasonable opportunity is required to be given to the parties litigating before the court-below so as to adduce their evidence in the interest of justice in the present case. Order sheet clearly indicates that sufficient opportunity, as required for the purpose of recording of evidence on the part of the defendant, has not been given. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that only one witness is required to be examined in the present case and he will not ask for further time for that purpose and accordingly, the impugned order dated 6.1.2012 is required to be set aside and the present petitioner- defendant is required to be given an opportunity for the purpose of examination of one witness on behalf of the defendant.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties submitted that the next date is tomorrow i.e. 6.2.2013. Under the circumstances, defendant shall produce his witness tomorrow i.e. 6.2.2013 for the purpose of recording of evidence and no further opportunity shall be given for this purpose. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out from the order sheet that the court below has passed this kind of order because of the conduct of the defendant and therefore, some cost is required to be imposed upon the defendant while allowing this petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000.00.;