- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by Sub -Judge -VII, Deoghar, whereby an order has been passed by trial court compelling the present petitioner, who is the original defendant No. 6, to adduce his evidence immediately after the evidence of the plaintiff is over. This order has been passed on 28th of April, 2009, in Title Suit No. 77 of 1993, which is at Annexure -2. The said order has been challenged mainly on the ground that the petitioner should not have been compelled to adduce his evidence unless the contesting respondents adduce their evidence. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court and hence, the impugned order at Annexure -2, dated 28th of April, 2009, passed in Title Suit No. 77 of 1993, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) ALTERNATIVELY , it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by now during the pendency of this writ petition the stage to take evidence by the present petitioner (original defendant No. 6). has also been closed down on 30th of June, 2009 and, therefore, at least the stage of taking evidence by the present petitioner be opened and the petitioner will not ask for adjournment and will complete their evidence within a period of two or three days. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents No. 3, 4, 15 and 16 who has submitted that enough adjournments were given by the trial court for taking evidence but because of the lethargic approach of the present petitioner (original defendant No. 6) the stage of taking evidence had to be closed by the trial court. So far as the order of Annexure -2, is 10/5/2014 Page 192 Sunanda Nandi Versus State Of Jharkhand concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the contesting respondents that in Title Suit No. 77 of 1993, petitioner is defendant No. 6 and looking to the written statement filed by defendant No. 6, he is supporting the plaintiff and, therefore, the trial court has passed the order dated 12th April, 2009, in Title Suit No. 77 of 1993, that original defendant No. 6 should adduce his evidence immediately after the evidence of plaintiff is over. Hence, no error has been committed by the trial court in passing the order at Annexure -2, looking to the stand taken by the original defendant No. 6 in Title Suit No. 77 of 1993, and, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed and even alternative prayer may not be granted by this Court.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: '' (I) respondent No. 1 is original plaintiff who has filed Title Suit No. 77 of 1993, wherein the present petitioner is original defendant No. 6 and the present Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 15 and 16 are the main contesting defendants in the Title Suit. (II) it appears from the facts of the case that the written statement filed by the present petitioner i.e. by original defendant No. 6 is supporting the original plaintiff and, therefore, the trial court has rightly passed the order dated 28th of April, 2009, compelling the present petitioner to adduce his evidences first, after plaintiff has adduced his evidence. (III) looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by Trial Court in passing the order dated 28th of April, 2009, at Annexure -2. (IV) so far alternative prayer is concerned, it appears that stage of adducing evidence by original defendant No. 6 is closed down on 30th of June, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will not take much time in adducing his evidence and within two or three days it will be over and they will not ask any unnecessary adjournments. (V) looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that if defendant No. 6 is not allowed to adduce or bring his evidence on record it will cause serious prejudice to the original defendant No. 6. ;