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
7 paragraphs · 223 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
By the impugned order dated 19/03/2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 30A/2012, plaintiffs'/petitioners' opportunity to further cross-examine defendant No. 1 i.e. Rajendra Agrawal has been closed against which this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plainitffs/petitioners.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 19/03/2019 is unsustainable and bad in law.
I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners, considered his submissions and went through the record with utmost circumspection.
Taking into consideration the stand taken by the plaintiffs/petitioners and looking to the fact that the plaintiffs/petitioners are contesting the civil suit since 04/08/2012, they are permitted to cross-examine defendant No. 1 i.e. Rajendra Agrawal on 1st May, 2019 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 4,000/- to defendant No. 1. If on that day, defendant No. 1 i.e. Rajendra Agrawal is not present or could not be examined for any other reason, the trial Court would fix the date not later than 7 days from that day.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed off. However, defendant No. 1 is at liberty to make an application for modification of this order, if he feels aggrieved.
Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court by e-mail/fax.