JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 (Annex-9) passed by the District Judge, Banswara, in Civil Original Case No.22/2007 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently, the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiff may kindly be dismissed.

II. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

III. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit in the year 2007 before the learned District Judge, Banswara for possession and permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant; whereafter, the petitioner-defendant filed a counter claim; thereafter, the learned Court below proceeded with the trial. The learned Court below, after giving various opportunities to the respondents-plaintiffs, closed the evidence, while posting the matter for final arguments on 06.12.2021; the matter was heard finally and concluded, and the judgment was reserved.

2.1. After the arguments were concluded finally in the suit, the respondents-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 17 Rule 3 read with Order 18 Rule 2 & 17 read with Section 151 CPC for providing one more opportunity to the respondents-plaintiffs to lead the evidence. The petitioner filed reply to the said application. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 07.01.2022, the said application was allowed by the learned Court below. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reopening the evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs is completely misconceived inasmuch as the matter was posted for final judgment on 20.12.2021.

3.1. It was further submitted that the application in question was filed at a belated stage and the respondents-plaintiffs were given several opportunities to lead their evidence, but the respondents-plaintiffs filed the application, after the final arguments in the suit were concluded and the judgment was reserved. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law.

3.2. It was also submitted that the application in question itself was totally misconceived, and thus, in view thereof, the learned Court below ought not have exercised its power to reopen the evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs.

3.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Rajasthan Financial Coproration Vs. Pukhraj Jain & Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 773 of 2000, decided on 24.10.2000); and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt. Savith Ramma & Ors. Vs Sri Hanumappa @ Mariyappa & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 32230-32231/2009, decided on 20.10.2010).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, submitted that the respondents-plaintiffs have filed an affidavit of Chief Examination of the witnesses, namely, Pranav Pandya and Ravindranath Bhandari on 05.10.2017 i.e. before closure of the plaintiffs’ evidence.

4.1. It was further submitted that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses has already been recorded before closure of the evidence, and therefore, the impu