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
8 paragraphs · 361 wordsSanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the opposite parties.
This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 13.7.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division -V, Deoghar in Original Suit No.76 of 2015 whereby a petition for recalling of the PW-2 has been rejected by the learned court.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the recall petition was filed and the PW-2 was not discharged, however, PW-1 and PW-3 have been discharged. He submits that the learned court has wrongly passed the said order. On this ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the prayer and submits that the learned court has been pleased to allow the petition for taking leave to recall the witness on cost of Rs.2000/- by the order dated 17.05.2023 and further a cost of Rs.2000/- was allowed for recalling each of the witnesses. She submits that on 31.05.2023 only cost of Rs.2000/- has been deposited and rest amount was not deposited. She further submits that in spite of the opportunity provided no witness has been produced. She submits that by the order dated 30.08.2023 since the cost was not deposited in spite of allowing the petition, the plaintiff’s evidence was closed.
By order dated 17.5.2023 a petition for taking leave to recall was allowed at the cost of Rs.2,000/- and further for recalling of the witnesses Rs.2000/- per witness cost was imposed and that prayer was also allowed and cost of recalling witnesses was not complied with and only Rs.2000/- of taking leave has been deposited and in view of that the learned court by order dated 30.08.2023 has closed the evidence of the defendants and the opportunity was also provided to the petitioners herein and petition filed was also allowed and the court’s order was not complied, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Accordingly, C.M.P. No.1053 of 2023 is dismissed.
Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.