AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 366 wordsPurushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
The petitioner in the present writ petition has called in question order dated 08.05.2019 and 02.07.2019, whereby, the trial Court has closed the right of the petitioner-plaintiff to adduce the evidence and has rejected the application under Order 16 Rule 3, 4 and 5 of CPC. So far as the nature of dispute is concerned, this Court has dealt with the same in M.P.No.3253/2019 while deciding legality of another interim order passed by the trial Court against the petitioner, therefore, the same are not being referred here, except those which are necessary for the decision involved here.
The learned trial Court vide order dated 08.05.2019 has recorded that the suit is pending since 2014 and on 18.07.2018, 08.08.2018, 16. 11.2018, 20.11.2018, 14.12.2018 and 09.02.2019 opportunities to adduce the evidence were given and on 08.05.2019 also the petitioner-plaintiff was not in a position to inform as to who are the witnesses to be examined by him. No list of witnesses was produced and, therefore, the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed. The directions were given to the defendant to produce his witnesses. Vide another order dated 02.07.2019 the application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 16 Rule 3, 4 and 5 of CPC was considered where the petitioner-plaintiff wanted to produce four more witnesses who are in his relation, however, it was seen by the trial Court that since the evidence of the plaintiff was already closed, the evidence of the defendant was also completed and hence, after hearing the matter the opportunity for submission of the written argument was given.
Having gone through the contents of the application (Annexure P/5) and the reasoning given by the trial Court, I do not find any scope for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the trial Court had sufficient reason to decline the prayer of the petitioner at the fag end of the trial. Even a wrong/illegal order need not be interfered with on mere asking or on a drop of hat {See Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329}.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.