Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3037 of 2010 Petitioner :- Kashi Nath Respondent :- Raj Nath & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Brijesh Yadav Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.
Through this writ petition the petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned
order dated 27-11-2006 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Hawali,
Varanasi in Original Suit No. 447 of 1995, Kashi Nath Vs. Raj Nath and
others and the order dated 9-11-2009 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Court No.15, Varanasi in Civil Revision No. 17 of 2007, Kashi Nath Vs. Raj
Nath and others.
Vide order dated 27-11-2006, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi has
rejected the petitioner’s application No.124C to recall of the order dated 18-7-
2006 closing the plaintiff’s evidence on the ground that since before, the
applicant has been seeking adjournment after adjournment.
Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed a Revision No. 17 of 2005
that too was dismissed vide order dated 9-11-2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application seeking
recall of the order dated 18-7-2006 was filed on the same day and the court
below had erred in rejecting the same. In his submissions, the applicant ought
to have been allowed and the time ought to have been granted to adduce the
evidence which could not be done earlier.
It appears, the suit was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in the year 1995 and
the issues were framed in the year 2001. The petitioner could not aduce the
evidence and it is on 10-12-2004, the petitioner’s right to adduce evidence was
closed. However, an application filed by the petitioner to recall the said order
was allowed on 28-10-2005 and the petitioner-plaintiff was given further
opportunity to adduce evidence. Even, thereafter, the petitioner has sought a
number of adjournments. Thereafter, on 18-7-2006, the date fixed, the
petitioner neither adduced the evidence nor filed an application seeking
adjournment. The court below has closed the right to adduce evidence on the
ground that the petitioner-plaintiff is not serious about his case. The
Revisional Court has also taken the same view and dismissed the revision.
I have heard Sri Brijesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the record.
Looking into the conduct of the petitioner it appears that the petitioner he is
really not serious about his case, therefore the orders impugned passed by the
court below can not be faulted with. Writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby
dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.2.2010
Ak