It is essential for courts to grant sufficient opportunities to parties and complete all proceedings in a suit before posting it for judgment, ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. - Petitioners who are defendants 2 to 5 before the trial Court have filed the present petition seeking to set aside the order passed on I.As. 5 and 6 in O.S.No.1/2017 whereby the trial Court has rejected the applications filed seeking for reopening of the case and permitting the defendants to cross-examine P.W.1.

2. Perused the impugned order as well as the order sheet. It is noticed that the plaintiffs had also sought for leading of further evidence and the said application filed by the plaintiffs in I.A.4 was allowed. However, it is noticed that subsequently as plaintiffs had sought for time, further evidence of plaintiffs was taken as nil and the matter was posted for defendants' evidence on 10.11.2022. On 10.11.2022 as defendants were not present, the evidence of defendants was taken as nil and the matter was posted for arguments on merits on 24.11.2022. On 24.11.2022, plaintiffs had sought for time and the matter was adjourned finally to 09.12.2022. On 09.12.2022, request of the plaintiffs for time was rejected and after perusal of the records, the matter was posted for judgment.

3. It is noticed that the matter was posted for defendants' evidence on 10.11.2022 and on that date, in light of the absence of defendants, matter was straight away posted for arguments. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners that there was no sufficient opportunity to the defendants, requires acceptance. It is also noticed that even on 24.11.2022, the trial Court noticed that the plaintiffs had sought for time which prayer was rejected and after perusing the records, posted the matter for judgment which may also not have been a correct procedure that was followed.

4. It is noticed that though the learned trial Judge has noticed that the question of reopening the matter once it is posted for judgment would not arise, perusal of the order sheet would indicate that no sufficient opportunity has been granted by the Court to the parties, no arguments have been advanced and there is no evidence of the defendants on record. Accordingly, it cannot be stated that all proceedings in the suit were completed before the matter was posted for judgment. It would be necessary to afford an opportunity to the defendants to participate in the proceedings.

5. No doubt, there may have been some lapse on the part of the parties by taking adjournments but a perusal of the order sheet would indicate that the Court ought to have given further opportunities to the parties. Accordingly, taking note that no reasons are assigned as regards to the dismissal of the applications on its merits, it is a fit case for setting aside the impugned order.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and I.As. 5 and 6 are allowed. Stage of the case is reopened for the purpose of cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.1 is recalled. It is also observed at this stage that as request was earlier made by the plaintiffs for further evidence, in the event the plaintiffs want to lead further evidence, liberty is reserved to the plaintiffs to do so in light of the order recalling P.W.1. Thereafter, defendants are at liberty to cross-examine and proceed with the matter. Both the parties undertake that they would not seek for unnecessary adjournments. The trial Court to dispose off the matter keeping in mind the applicable administrative orders relating to disposal of the old matters.

7. In light of the above, the petition is disposed off.