[2025:RJ-JP:19] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18833/2024 1. Dainik Tarun Rajasthan, Through Its Editor/ Secretary/ Authorised Representative, R/o City Office 33, Gol Building Road, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. 2. Rajneesh Chhangani, Publisher And Editor, Dainik Tarun Rajathan, Address City Office, 33, Gol Building Road, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur ----Petitioners Versus 1. Smt Neelam Meena D/o Shri Bhaageerath Meena, R/o Booking Clerk, Booking Office, North Western Railway, Bhilwara, Rajasthan 2. Shri Ramprasad Meena, S/o Shri Samrath Lal Meena, R/o A-21, Ashish Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur 3. Subhash Kumar Singh, Reporter Danik Tarun Rajasthan, Address 33, Gol Building Road, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur (Diseased During The Pendency Of Suit) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bardhar For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 02/01/2025 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metro-I (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.129/2014 whereby the trial court dismissed the defendant’s application for opening the evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:19] (2 of 3) [CW-18833/2024] Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondents-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the defendants in which due to some unavoidable circumstances, defendant No.2 could not appear before the trial court on 03.09.2024. Resultantly, the trial Court closed the defendant’s evidence on 03.09.2024. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that absence of the defendant for adducing the evidence before the trial court was bona fide. Learned counsel further submits that the defendants filed an application before the trial Court for opening the evidence but the trial Court vide order dated 08.11.2024 dismissed the same. So, in the interest of justice, the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the trial court be set-aside and one more opportunity may be given to the defendants for adducing the evidence before the trial court. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that despite giving ample opportunities 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 the evidence before the trial court on payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly, petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The orders dated 03.09.2024 and 08.11.2024 passed by the trial Court are set-aside and the trial Court is directed to grant only one opportunity to the defendants for adducing the evidence before [2025:RJ-JP:19] (3 of 3) [CW-18833/2024] the trial Court subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- by the defendants to the plaintiffs on or before next date of hearing, failing which no opportunity shall be granted by the trial Court to the defendants for adducing the evidence. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/5