[2025:RJ-JP:1382] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7776/2016 Gopal Lal Jat Son Of Shri Jeewan Ram Jat, Village Muhana, Tehsil Sanganer, District-Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Bhimaram Sharma Son Of Shri Badrinarayan Sharma, Village Muhana, Tehsil -Sanganer, District-Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gourav Sharma Saraswat Mr. Sahil Parashar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 09/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 06.04.2016 passed by Additional District and Session Judge No. 19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Sanganer (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 115/2013 titled as “Bhimaram Sharma Vs. Gopal Lal Jat”, whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner (for short ‘the defendant’) for reopening the defendant’s evidence. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 15,00,000/- against the defendant in which due to unavoidable reasons, the defendant could not appear before the trial court on 31.03.2016. Resultantly, the trial Court closed the defendant’s evidence. After that, learned counsel for the defendant filed an application before the trial court for reopening the defendant’s evidence but the trial Court vide [2025:RJ-JP:1382] (2 of 3) [CW-7776/2016] order dated 06.04.2016 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the absence of the defendant for adducing the evidence before the trial Court was bona fide. So, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders passed by the trial Court be set aside and one more opportunity may be given to the defendant to adduce the evidence before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that ample opportunities had been given to the defendant for adducing the evidence before the trial Court but defendant had not adduced the evidence before the trial Court. So, the trial Court vide order dated 31.03.2016 rightly closed the defendant’s evidence. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant and learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that despite giving ample opportunities, the defendant could not adduce evidence before the trial Court. So, his evidence was closed by the trial Court. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it just and proper to grant one opportunity to the defendant to adduce his evidence before the trial Court on payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the trial Court are set aside. The trial court is directed to grant only an opportunity to the defendant for adducing his evidence on payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- to [2025:RJ-JP:1382] (3 of 3) [CW-7776/2016] the plaintiff on or before next date of hearing, failing which no further opportunity shall be granted by the trial Court to the defendant for adducing the evidence. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/107