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
9 paragraphs · 293 wordsRajneesh Kumar Gupta, J
This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 12th February, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court in case bearing No. CS SCJ 1188/22, whereby the right of the petitioner/defendant no. 3 to lead his evidence has been closed.
Heard. Record perused.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunities to lead his evidence. It is further argued that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the opportunity to lead his evidence is not granted.
Per Contra, learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has argued that sufficient opportunities have already been granted by the learned Trial Court to the petitioner to lead evidence, and the present petition has only been filed to delay the Trial Court proceedings.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if one (01) more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence, as the respondent can be compensated by way of costs. Accordingly, one more opportunity is granted is granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the respondent/plaintiff.
It shall be open to the learned Trial Court to record the evidence of the petitioner on the date already fixed or on any other date as may be convenient to the Trial Court.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.