Lohara And Ors vs Netram And Ors

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

The petitioners / plaintiffs take exception to the order by which their right to lead further evidence has been closed by submitting that the plaintiffs

have examined their one witness and filed the affidavit evidence of another witness, but their opportunity to lead evidence has abruptly been closed, as

the plaintiffs wish to examine witnesses- Somar Sai and Sukhan Ram.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs and went through the order sheets of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.

It is correct to say that the plaintiffs have examined one witness Leeladhar and the affidavit evidence of another witness Keshav Singh has already

been filed and on 17-6-2019, their opportunity to lead evidence has been closed. Since the plaintiffs have examined their one witness Leeladhar and

affidavit of one witness Keshav Prasad Singh has already been filed, considering the nature of suit which is for declaration of title and permanent

injunction, it would be expedient to grant one opportunity to the plaintiffs to cross-examine Keshav Prasad Singh and to adduce the statement of

Somar Sai and Sukhan on the next date of hearing i.e. 25-9-2019. It is ordered accordingly. The plaintiffs will do well subject to payment of cost of ₹

3,000/- to defendants No.1 to 5 and further, they will keep all their witnesses present by filing affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, if any, and

no further adjournment will be granted on that day.

With this liberty, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court by E-mail / fax.