The court emphasized the need to provide an opportunity for plaintiffs to lead evidence, overriding procedural closure to ensure justice in light of changed circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties/defendants.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 21.05.2024 passed in petition dated 29.01.2024 arising out of Title Suit No.17 of 2014 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-III, Gumla whereby the said petition has been rejected by the learned Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted the Title Suit No.17 of 2014 for right, title, interest and possession of the suit property. He submits that pursuant to summon issued the defendants appeared and filed their written statement. He submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed petition on 18.04.2023 under Order VII Rule 14(2) of Code of Civil Procedure for getting permission for bringing on record some additional important documents which are related to instant Title Suit No.17 of 2014 which could not be filed earlier before settlement of issue and thereafter opposite parties/defendants filed their rejoinder on 17.05.2023 and the learned trial court for interest of justice has been pleased to allow the petition dated 18.04.2023 vide order dated 17.05.2023 with cost of Rs.300/-. He submits that after order dated 17.05.2023 plaintiff No.1 (Late Lagnu Oraon) became seriously ill due to which he was not able to pairvi the Title Suit No.17 of 2024 and thereafter he died on September, 2023 and in view of that the order dated 17.05.2023 was not complied. In this background, he submits that the petition was filed for substitution of plaintiff No.1 which was allowed by the order dated 04.01.2023 and the learned Court has been pleased to close the evidence of the petitioners by order dated 20.10.2023. He submits that the petition was filed to recall of the said order, however, the learned Court has been pleased to reject the same. He further submits that if the plaintiff will not be allowed to lead the evidence, his entire case will be prejudiced and in view of that he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside.

4. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the defendants/opposite party Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 opposes the prayer and submits that the suit is pending since 2014 and the plaintiff’s evidence started in the year 2016 and till date no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and in view of that the learned Court was competent to pass the order. He submits that there is no provision of recalling of the witness and in view of the new amendment, as such there is no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that another proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner was being persuaded by the plaintiffs/petitioners and in view of that the submission of no knowledge is not correct and on this background, he submits that the said petition may kindly be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, who is opposite party No.5 submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the order.

6. It is an admitted position that the petitioners have not been able to adduce the evidence and certain documents have been allowed to bring on record by the learned court by order dated 17.05.2023 and the learned Court has further allowed the petition to lead the evidence, however, the evidence has not been led by the plaintiffs and the disclosure has been made that the plaintiff No.1 has left for his heavenly abode, subsequently the substitution petition was allowed and the l