DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI, J.

1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff/petitioner assailed the order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Beawar District Ajmer (hereinafter referred as "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 123/2012, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under section 151 of CPC to provide an opportunity to produce the witness Banshi Lal in his evidence.

2. Material facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a civil suit against the defendant/respondent for recovery of Rs. 1,32,500/- stating therein that the defendant took a loan of Rs. 97,000/- from him vide cheque of MGB Gramin Bank. The defendant did not return the amount of loan despite requests and legal notice. The defendant filed a written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff denying all the averments contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed issues on 19.07.2016 and fixed the case for plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff/petitioner filed affidavit of his own and exhibited five documents in his evidence. On 26.05.2017, the plaintiff was cross-examined by the defendant and learned counsel for the plaintiff prayed for adjournment to produce remaining evidence. The learned trial Court declined the request and closed the evidence of the plaintiff and fixed the case for defendant's evidence. Thereafter, on next date 19.07.2017, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under section 151 of CPC, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 19.07.2017.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused written submissions filed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that advocate of the plaintiff/petitioner in learned trial Court, prayed for an opportunity to produce another witness Banshi Lal but the learned trial Court declined the request and dismissed the application without assigning reasons. It is also contended that provisions of Order 16, Rule 1 and 1-A of CPC deals with these type of contingencies to do justice to the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that witness Banshi Lal is a material witness and he is willing to give evidence in support of the plaintiff, therefore learned trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff/petitioner for examination of the witness Banshi Lal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 2014(4) Civil Court Cases 143 (P&H) M/s. IFB Industries Limited v. M/s. JBM Auto Components Ltd.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss the petition being devoid of merits.

9. Admittedly, the issues were framed on 19.07.2016 and the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. It is not disputed that after giving four opportunities to the plaintiff to produce his evidence, learned trial Court granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff to produce his all evidence on next date, and fixed the case for 26.05.2017. On 26.05.2017, only the plaintiff was present and he was cross-examined on his affidavit by the defendant. No other witness of the plaintiff was present on that day and the learned trial Court closed the plaintiff's evidence.

10. Order 16 of CPC provides for summoning and attendance of witnesses. Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC provides for list of witnesses and summons to witnesses. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 (supra) provides for presenting the list of witnesses whom the party proposes to ca