ORDER :

1. The petitioner has approached this Court against order dated 31.01.2022, whereby, his right to lead evidence has been closed.

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner, who was a party respondent in the suit had approached this Court earlier by way of filing a writ petition being SBCWP No.882/2022, against the order dated 04.01.2022, whereby, his right to lead evidence had been closed.

3. In petitioner's aforesaid writ petition, on 17.01.2022, this Court passed the following interim order:-

"1. Issue notice.

2. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable within a period of six weeks.

3. Notice, when issued, be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that affidavits of all the witnesses of the petitioner will be filed before the trial Court by the next date.

5. In the facts of the present case, it is deemed appropriate and hence ordered that if on the next date of hearing which is reported to be 29.01.2022, the petitioner keeps all his witnesses ready(whose affidavits have been filed) before the trial Court, they shall be examined/cross-examined, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-.

6. In case the cost is not accepted by the respondents/learned counsel for the respondents and they want to contest the present writ petition, further proceedings in Civil Original Case No.07/2010 shall remain stayed.

7. The petitioner shall be required to file the affidavit of his witnesses on the next date of hearing, while giving copies of such affidavits at least three days in advance to the opposite counsel.

8. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner does not pay the cost as directed here- in-above or does not produce all the witnesses, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner."

4. According to the petitioner, on 29.01.2022 he appeared in the Court premises and offered cost of Rs.5,000/-, which was duly accepted by respondents' counsel and submitted affidavit of the concerned witnesses by providing copy thereof to the opposite counsel.

5. On such date (29.01.2022) as the presiding officer was on leave, the matter was adjourned to 14.02.2022 by way of the following order :

^^29-1-22 Jheku~ P.O. lkgc vodk'k ij gSA dksjksuk ok;jl ds dkj.k vf/koDrk mHk; i{kdkjku mifLFkr ughaA i=koyh okLrs cgl vafre gsrq fnukad %& 14-2-22 dks is'k gksA

lgh@&

vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k

jk;flaguxj ¼ftyk Jhxaxkuxj½**

6. Mr. Shardul, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/his counsel had noted the next dated to 14.02.2022, whereafter, he was telephonically informed that said dated i.e. 14.02.2022 has been changed to 31.01.2022.

7. Petitioner does not dispute the factum of being informed about the next date, i.e. 31.01.2022. He has approached this Court with an assertion that the witnesses were residing outside Sriganganagar and therefore on a short notice of one day, they could not appear for completion of their evidence and thus on 31.01.2022, the witnesses did not remain present.

8. It was also argued by learned counsel that affidavits had already been filed and since on the account of third wave of COVID, virtual hearing was taking place and evidence were not being recorded, the trial Court ought to have granted atleast one opportunity during the physical hearing, so as to complete evidence.

9. Mr. Chawala, learned counsel for the respondents invited Court's attention towards the order sheet that was drawn by the Court at 12.20 p.m. and pointed out that the petitioner's affidavit was taken on record and having regard to the order passed by this Court on 17.01.2022, which came to the notice of link Court later, the case was ordered to be posted on 31.01.2022.

10. He argued that the petitioner's counsel was informed about the date of hearing and therefore, it was required of the petitioner to be ready for completion of evidence.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this C