##PAGE1##

1 MP-461-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 30 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 461 of 2026

AMIT KUMAR SAHU

Versus

PAWAN ARORA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Prahlad Choudhary-Senior Advocate with Shri Abhishek Patel-

Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the

trial court whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the

petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

2. The application was filed for summoning the notary who has

notarized the questioned agreement to sell. The trial court has rejected the

application on the ground that earlier this Court in MP No. 306/2024 has

granted liberty to the defendants to cross examine only those plaintiff

witnesses who had already been examined, but no liberty had been given to

the plaintiff to examine any fresh witness and therefore the application

cannot be allowed.

3. The basic facts leading to the aforesaid dispute are that the

plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance and in the said suit for

specific performance, prior to filing written statement, the defendant had

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 31-01-2026

13:42:30

2 MP-461-2026

been proceeded ex parte and thereafter the said order proceeding him ex-

parte was set aside on 05.08.2022. However, prior to that, the plaintiff had

declared his ex-parte evidence as closed and the matter had been posted for

final arguments.

4. After the ex parte proceedings against the defendant was set aside

thereafter, the defendant filed written statement and then the matter was

proceeded from that stage.

5. However, the defendant then sought a leave from the court to

cross examine those plaintiff witnesses who had earlier been examined in ex

parte evidence. The permission was denied by the trial court vide order dated

25.11.2023 noting that these witnesses have already been examined and now

cannot be put up for examination again. This court in MP No. 306 of 2024

had set aside that order noting that once the ex parte proceedings against the

defendant have been set aside, therefore the defendant has a right to

participate in the proceedings from the stage he was proceeded ex parte,

which was the stage prior to filing of the written statement and therefore the

defendant was given right to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses who had

already been examined in ex parte proceedings.

6. The trial court seems to have interpreted the said order to the

effect that the plaintiff would not be entitled to bring any other witness.

However, earlier the plaintiff had closed his evidence when there was no

written statement of the defendant on record and now since there is a written

statement of the defendant on record and the proceedings are going on from

the stage of filing of written statement of the defendant, then the plaintiff to

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 31-01-2026

13:42:30

3 MP-461-2026

prove his case effectively in view of the defences taken by the defendant can

make a request to the trial court to produce or summon any material witness

and that request could not have been denied in view of the order of this court

in MP No. 306 of 2024, which was only for a limited purpose to permit

defendant to cross examine the already examined witnesses of the plaintiff.

The said order did not curtail the right of the plaintiff to prove his case in

appropriate manner, looking to the defences set up by the defendant in his

written statement.

7. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 is set aside. The

trial court is directed to redecide the application filed by the plaintiff without

being influenced by the order passed by this court in MP No. 306/2024

because that order does not curtail the right of the plaintiff to prove his case

in the manner he wishes, looking to the defences set up in the written

statement.

8. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the petition is

dispose