Md. Shamim Ahmad and Others vs Shankar Mitra

R.K. Merathia, J.—Heard the parties.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.2.2008 passed by the Sub-Judge, Vth, Dhanbad, allowing the petition filed

on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent to close the evidence of the plaintiff, and also the order dated 5.6.2008, closing the evidence of defendant-

petitioner.

It appears that the defendant-petitioner raised a frivolous contention that the plaintiff should be cross-examined at the cost of the plaintiff, which

was rejected by order dated 25.5.2007 against which the petitioner and other tenants filed writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos. 3930, 3945. 3951.

3953, 3954, 3956, 3962 and 4305 of 2007 which were dismissed by order dated 23.7.2007. Thereafter the defendant-petitioner did not choose

to cross-examine the plaintiff, who was examined on commission.

The Pleader Commissioner discharged the plaintiff and returned his evidence to the Court. Thereafter the defendant-petitioner filed a petition to

recall the plaintiff witness for cross-examination which was allowed on 2.1.2008 on the condition of payment of cost of Rs. 250/- as Pleader

Commissioner''s expenses and additional expenses of Rs. 500/- by the next date, failing which, the such petition filed by the de.fendant-petitioner

was to be treated as rejected, but inspite of several opportunities given to him, instead of depositing the said amount of Rs. 500/-, he contended

that the said amount should be recovered from him at the time of passing the judgment and decree in the suit. In these circumstances, the plaintiff-

respondent filed a petition for closing his case which was allowed by the impugned order dated 25.2.2008.

This is a suit for eviction of the year 1999. The learned Court below has rightly found that the defendant-petitioner is simply trying to delay the

disposal of the suit on one pretext or the other. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.2.2008 especially in view of the

conduct of the defendant-petitioner.

From the order dated 5.6.2008, it appears that no body appeared on behalf of the defendant-petitioner when the matter was taken up by the

learned Court below. The Court below held that the defendant-petitioner is adopting the delaying tactics and, accordingly, closed the evidence of

the defendant-petitioner.

In the circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the aforesaid order dated 5.6.2008 and give one opportunity to the defendant. Accordingly, the

defendant is permitted to produce his witnesses and conclude his evidence within four weeks from today, failing which, the evidence of the

defendant-petitioner shall be closed. The parties are directed to co-operate in early disposal of the suit.

With these observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. However, no costs.