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
6 paragraphs · 219 wordsMr. Sandeep Mehta, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the District Judge, Merta in Civil Original Case No. 23/2007 whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC for taking an affidavit of the defendant Ram Deen on record was rejected.
I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned order.
The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. If any material adverse to the interest of Ram Deen was spelt out from his affidavit sworn earlier, then the petitioners are definitely entitled to use the same subject to the admissibility under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Thus, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners. The order under challenge is unreasoned and illegal and thus, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 26.9.2011 is set aside. Subject to the just objections of the defendants, the affidavit of Ram Deen is permitted to be taken on record provided the evidence of the plaintiffs has not been closed till date.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
No order as to cost.