Jagdish Prasad And Others vs District Judge, And Others on 26 July, 2010

Court No. - 4

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 321 of 2010

Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad And Others
Respondent :- District Judge, And Others

Petitioner Counsel :- Arvind Srivastava
Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the 

order proposed to be passed hereunder, the writ petition is being 

disposed   of   without   calling   for   a   counter   affidavit   as   no   useful 

purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending.

Undisputed   facts   are   that   in   the   year   2003,   the   statement   of 

petitioner   no.   1   was   recorded   as   P.W.   1,   but   the   defendant­

respondent   instead   of   cross­examining   him,   repeatedly   got   the 

matter adjourned. In the year 2009, one more opportunity, as a 

last opportunity, was given to the defendant­respondent for cross­

examination,   which   was   not   availed.   Subsequently,   vide   order 

dated   15.05.2010,   the   opportunity   of   the   defendant   for   cross­

examination   was   closed.   The   defendant­respondent   moved   an 

application dated 20th  May, 2010 to recall the order, which was 

objected to by the petitioners. However, trial court vide order dated 

26.05.2010 recalled the order dated 15.05.2010 and again gave 

one   last   opportunity   to   the   defendant­respondent   for   cross­

examination on payment of Rs.1500/­ as cost, which was to be 

paid on or  before 04.06.2010 and the same date was fixed for 

cross­examination.   Neither   cost   was   paid   nor   the   defendant­
respondent made any cross­examination on the date fixed.

It is contended that without there being any prayer made by the 
defendant­respondent, the court, suo motu, granted further time on 
04.06.2010 and fixed 14.06.2010 for cross­examination. Again the 
defendant failed to cross­examine and 24.08.2010 was fixed for 
cross­examination. Aggrieved the petitioners went up in revision, 
which has been dismissed.

The   grievance   of   the   petitioners   is   that   though   several 

opportunities have been permitted to the defendant but he has not 

cross­examining   the   plaintiff’s   witnesses   and   the   court   below 

instead of proceeding with the matter, is unnecessarily adjourning 

the proceeding and granting time. 

Considering   the   facts   and   circumstances,   writ   petition   stands 

disposed of with the direction to the trial court to fix a date for 

cross­examination  within   10   days  of   the   receipt   of   the   certified 

copy of this order and in case, the cross­examination is not done 

on   that   date   then   the   opportunity   to   the   defendant   for   cross­

examination shall be closed and the trial court shall proceed with 

the matter in accordance with law.

26.07.2010
VKS/ WP 321/10