ORDER

1. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 23.04.2024 passed in RCSA No.345/2018 by the First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mandsaur whereby his right to lead evidence has been closed.

2. Along with the petition the plaintiff has filed the order-sheets of the trial Court from which it is seen that on 09.02.2024 the case was fixed for framing of additional issues. The trial Court observed that no additional issues are required to be framed and fixed the case for recording of plaintiff's evidence for 16.02.2024. On that day it noticed that certain applications are pending which need to be decided prior to recording of evidence. Those applications came to be decided on 26.02.2024 and then the case was fixed for recording of plaintiff's evidence for 29.02.2024. On 29.02.2024 plaintiff was granted time to adduce evidence and on 07.03.2024 he was granted time to file the process fee for summoning of certain records. On 12.03.2024 an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC was filed by plaintiff which was allowed by order dated 14.03.2024. On 01.04.2024 the case was fixed for 06.04.2024 for recording of evidence on which day time was granted to plaintiff for adducing evidence on cost of Rs.500/-. On 08.04.2024 an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC was filed which was decided on 10.04.2024. On 13.04.2024 an application for summoning the record was rejected and then the case was fixed for 16.04.2024.

3. On 16.04.2024 the plaintiff appeared before the trial Court and his examination was conducted. Thereafter an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC was filed by plaintiff for grant of time to adduce evidence of witness to the agreement on the ground that there is a marriage in his family due to which he is not present. Rejecting the said application, observing that several opportunities have already been granted to the plaintiff earlier to adduce evidence but he has failed to do so, his right to lead evidence has been closed.

4. From a perusal of the entire order-sheets of the trial Court it does appear that plaintiff has been granted time on earlier occasions for adducing evidence but it cannot be said that he is so careless or negligent a litigant that he should be deprived completely of his valuable right to adduce evidence. Earlier time had been granted to plaintiff for adducing evidence and cost had also been imposed upon him. However it is also observed that intermittently applications were also filed which were decided. Moreover the case was fixed for evidence on 29.02.2024 and the impugned order has been passed on 23.04.2024 which is less than a period of two months. It cannot be said that plaintiff has unnecessarily delayed the trial of his own case. It is also to be noted that plaintiff's claim is for specific performance of contract and he would not benefit in any manner by prolonging the proceedings. Another aspect is that by order dated 26.02.2024 an application under Order 16 Rule 1 of the CPC filed by plaintiff was allowed and the witness from the office of the Sub Registrar along with the relevant record was directed to be summoned. That order is still in force and the effect of the impugned order is that the said order also looses its efficacy which is not permissible.

5. In any case it is well settled that it is the cause shown for the particular day which has to be taken into consideration. On 16.04.2024 it was stated by plaintiff that his witness is busy in his family function hence cannot appear. The said cause was a sufficient cause for grant of time to the plaintiff but the trial Court has merely referred to the earlier proceedings in rejecting the prayer made by the plaintiff which is wholly unjustified.

6. Consequently, in my opinion, the trial Court has acted extremely harshly against the plaintiff in closing his right to adduce evidence. The impugned order thus cannot be sustai