The court emphasized the importance of truthful representation in legal proceedings and allowed one last opportunity for cross-examination despite the petitioner's questionable conduct.

Order :

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition with the following prayer:-

“1. That impugned order dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure-6) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. That the evidence of petitioners/plaintiff may kindly be ordered to be re-opened and the petitioners/defendants be allowed to be cross examined by the defendants/respondents.

3. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure-6) while rejecting the application filed for review/recalling of the order dated 12.09.2023 on the ground that the petitioner failed to provide any medical documents indicating his illness because of which he was unable to lead evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention of this Court to the order sheet dated 12.09.2023 submits that the petitioner was present on that day as the order sheet has duly been signed by him as well his counsel and said signatures were taken on a blank order-sheet and the petitioner had sought an adjournment on that date because of his ill health, but the learned trial Court has wrongly observed in the order-sheet that the petitioner has refused to lead evidence. He further submits that on the next date fixed for the evidence before the learned trial Court, the petitioner had filed an application for review/recalling of the aforesaid order. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that one last opportunity in the interest of justice should be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the defendants.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been granted ample opportunities to lead evidence and therefore, the order has rightly been passed. He further submits that the petitioner has made false averments in the application that the learned trial Court has wrongly observed in the order sheet dated 12.09.2023 that the petitioner has refused to lead evidence as the same has duly been signed by the petitioner as well as his counsel. He further submits that it is an after thought of the petitioner and by making false averments in the application he sought recalling of the order dated 12.09.2023.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This Court finds that the learned trial Court has specifically mentioned in the order dated 12.09.2023 that the petitioner- plaintiff has refused to lead evidence and order sheet also bears the signatures of the petitioner-plaintiff as well his counsel and apparently it reflects that the petitioner-plaintiff has tried to make false averments in the application filed before the learned trial Court that the Presiding Officer has wrongly mentioned in the order-sheet that the petitioner has refused to lead evidence. The petitioner has preferred an application for review/recalling of the order dated 12.09.2023 and it is not expect from litigant to make false averments while alleging that the Presiding Officer closed the evidence of the petitioner, even when the petitioner had sought an adjournment and he was made to sign the order-sheet which was blank. Though, there is no averment in the application that the order sheet was blank at the time when the petitioner-plaintiff had signed it however, in the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff stated at Bar that the order sheet dated 12.09.2023 was blank at the time when the petitioner and his counsel were made to sign on it. It is important to note that the petitioner in the application filed before the learned trial Court while seeking review/recalling of the order dated 12.09.2023 has averred that on 12.09.2023 petitioner-plaintiff was present for evidence however, as he was not well and was unable to sit therefore, he requested for a