1. The instant petition is being preferred under Art.227 of the Constitution of India claiming following reliefs: -
"(i) the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 (Ann.9) and order dated 29.11.2017 (Ann.6) passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) No.1, Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The learned trial court may kindly be directed to provide the proper opportunities to the petitioner to adduce her evidence."

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Jodhpur (hereinafter as 'learned trial court'), claiming that Plot No. 2, Pancholiyo Ki Nadi, Harijan Basti, Jodhpur was allotted by the UIT, Jodhpur to her maternal grandmother, Smt. Uni, based on long - standing possession. The petitioner, along with her parents, resided with Smt. Uni and continued to live in the property after her demise. Smt. Uni executed a Will on 02.02.1994. The Will divided the property equally: the western half was bequeathed to the petitioner, while the remaining half was willed to the respondent. On 08.11.2013, the respondent allegedly threatened to forcibly evict her within a week if she did not vacate the property. The respondent, in his written statement, claimed that the petitioner is a widow residing elsewhere and that he and his family have been in possession of Plot No. 2. Based on the parties' pleadings, the trial court framed four issues on 24.01.2015 to adjudicate the matter. The petitioner submitted her affidavit in evidence but was unable to appear for cross - examination. Consequently, the trial court closed her evidence vide order dated 29.11.2017 (Annex.6). Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application dated 06.09.2019 (Annex.7) to recall the order dated 29.11.2017 (Annex.6) whereby her evidence was closed. The respondent opposed the application, while arguing that it was filed after an inordinate delay of two years with intention to cause delay in the proceedings. The learned trial court vide order dated 23.11.2022 (Annex.9) dismissed the petitioner's application to reopen the evidence while imposing a cost of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition submits that the learned trial court erred by closing petitioner's evidence as the petitioner was critically ill as she was having tuberculosis thus, rendering her unable to attend court proceedings. He also submits that despite the petitioner's continuous appearance before the learned trial court and submission of her examination - in - chief affidavit, the learned trial court closed the petitioner's evidence on the grounds that multiple opportunities had been given to lead evidence.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. This court finds that the learned trial court closed the evidence of the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2017 however, the application to recall the order dated 29.11.2017 was filed by the petitioner after almost two year on 06.09.2019. Further, it is important to note that on 24.01.2015 the learned trial court framed issues and fixed the matter for plaintiff's evidence. Thereafter, on 29.09.2015 one last opportunity was given to the petitioner herein to lead the evidence. Further, one more last opportunity was given to petitioner on 19.11.2015 with cost of Rs.200/-. Thereafter, one last opportunity was provided to the petitioner on two more subsequent dates - 27.03.2017 and 26.10.2017 respectively to lead the evidence, however, she failed. Thus, the learned trial court vide order dated 29.11.2017 closed the evidence of the petitioner as she could not provide satisfactory reason for the same.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was suffering from tuberculosis due to which she was unable to be present before the court and the relevant medical record has been placed on record. This