The captioned writ petition is filed by the

petitioner - plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order of

the learned Judge passed on I.A.No.11.

2. The petitioner - plaintiff has instituted a

recovery suit seeking recovery of Rs.30,00,00,116/-

with interest at the rate of 18%. The petitioner -

plaintiff to substantiate his claim has lead in evidence.

The respondents - defendants have deliberately

sought adjournments with malafide intention. The

grievance of the petitioner - plaintiff before this Court

is that the Court having declined to grant further

adjournments was compelled to record that the

evidence of defendants is taken as nil by order dated

19.04.2022. Thereafter, it appears that respondents -

defendants have filed an application on 26.05.2022 to

4

recall the earlier order and permit the respondents -

defendants to adduce the rebuttal evidence. The said

application filed by respondent No.3 came to be

rejected by the learned Judge by order dated

27.05.2022 and the matter was ordered to be listed

on 30.05.2022 for final arguments.

3. It appears that the respondents - defendants

filed one more application to recall the order dated

27.05.2022 and permit the respondents - defendants

to adduce defendants evidence. The said application is

allowed by order dated 30.05.2022. The present

application in I.A.No.11 is filed by the petitioner -

plaintiff.

The

learned

Judge

has

rejected

the

application filed by the petitioner - plaintiff in

I.A.No.11. The learned Judge while rejecting the

application has taken judicial note of the conduct of

the respondents - defendants, but, however, to do

substantial justice, the learned Judge was of the view

5

that the respondents - defendants have to be afforded

one opportunity to contest the suit. Therefore,

exercising discretion in favour of the respondents -

defendants,

learned

Judge

has

permitted

the

respondents - defendants to lead evidence by order

dated 30.05.2022. This order was sought to be

recalled at the instance of the petitioner - plaintiff on

the ground that the respondents - defendants are

trying to drag on the matter and protracting hearing

of the matter on one or other pretext. The petitioner

- plaintiff has also contended that once an order was

passed taking the defendants side evidence as nil, the

respondents - defendants could not have filed an

application to recall the earlier order without assailing

the order taking evidence as nil.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel. Perused

the order under challenge.

6

5. On examination of the order under challenge,

this Court would clearly find that the respondents -

defendants have adopted unfair methods and are not

co-operating for disposal of the suit. The conduct of

the defendants is clearly reflected in the order under

challenge. This Court would find that the respondents

- defendants are seeking adjournments and are trying

to protract the final disposal of the suit on one or the

other pretext. Be that as it may, if the learned Judge

has exercised judicial discretion and thereby has

granted one more opportunity to the respondents -

defendants enabling him to lead rebuttal evidence if

he chooses to do so, this Court under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the

order under challenge. No serious prejudice would

cause to the present petitioner - plaintiff. Of course,

the petitioner - plaintiff is put to some inconvenience

as the respondents - defendants have succeeded in

7

dragging the matter further. A party irrespective of

his unfair conduct is entitled to contest the suit.

Learned Judge by imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- has

permitted the respondents - defendants to adduce

rebuttal

evidence.

The

entire

approach

which

compelled the learned Judge to allow the application is

to have fair trial. It is in this background, this Court is

not inclined to interfere with the order under

challenge.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

However, it is open for the present petitioner -

plaintiff t