Gagan Gupta ANR ANR v. Jaswant Singh
CR 871 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 13, 2020 Gagan Gupta and another %.Petitioners
Versus
Jaswant Singh %..Respondent !"""
Present:
Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** "" #! $$%&'
Application under Section 151 CPC for permission to place on record photocopies of zimni orders from 03.10.2019 in compliance of order dated 06.02.2020 as annexure P63 (Colly) and exemption from filing its certified copies is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place. !!
Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2019 (P62) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which evidence of the petitioners/ plaintiffs was closed by the Court. Since the impugned order is very brief, therefore, the same is extracted hereunder:6
!
"
#
$
# %
" #
& %
'
"
( )(*()+
, It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that PW1 was very much present on various occasions, but his cross6examination was deferred on the request of defendant/ respondent for want of relevant record, which was to be produced by Kuldip Singh, Clerk, Office of Sub Registrar, as well as Mohinder Singh, and instead of taking any coercive steps against them, learned trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiffs/petitioners, causing a great prejudice to their case. Further contends that when bailable warrants were issued against Kuldip Singh and Mohinder Singh, then it was obligatory for the learned trial Court to secure their presence by way of coercive steps and in support of his plea relied upon single Bench judgment of this Court reported as 2014 (3) PLR 92, ()*+,-,(..((./0,*1+2+!,3.3-,(..((./0,*1+. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper6book.
It transpires that suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioners on 10.09.2012 and on the pleadings of both the parties, issues were framed by learned trial Court on 04.03.2015. Paper6book reveals that after framing of the issues, plaintiffs/petitioners were afforded various opportunities to lead their evidence i.e. on 29.04.2015, 25.08.2015, 09.09.2015, 23.09.2015, 09.10.2015, 03.11.2015, 26.11.2015, 17.12.2015, 15.01.2016, 18.02.2016,
12.04.2016, 18.05.2016, and thereafter on 16.06.2016, while granting last opportunity, learned trial Court passed the following order:6 ") -# -
.
/
!
"
)0(0*()1
# .
# "
#
!
2
#
% "
, Thereafter again, learned trial Court on 18.08.2016 granted one last opportunity to the petitioners at their own responsibility, in the following terms:6 "
/
!
"
( (+*()1 "
, Learned trial Court without caring for the above factual position, again granted numerous opportunities to the petitioners for leading their evidence on 07.09.2016, 04.10.2016, 05.11.2016, 18.11.2016, 09.01.2017, 22.02.2017, 21.03.2017, 17.04.2017, 23.05.2017, 14.07.2017, 28.08.2017, 18.10.2017, 29.11.2017, 15.12.2017, 24.01.2018 and 14.02.2018. Since on 14.02.2018 also, no PW was present and learned trial Court again granted last opportunity at their own responsibility while passing the following order:6
3 #
% 4 # %5 6
&
!
% "
)1( *()0 "
& #
, Thereafter, again learned trial Court granted various opportunities to t petitioners and some of the relevant orders are extracted as under:6 $ 4 #
7
%
)))0
#
-# -
# "
& # "
)))0
8
#
, $ 4 #% 3
6
&
#
39(((8.
(+(0*()0&%
#
4
*0(+*()0&%
:
4 #
& # &% - "" 4 #
$
4 # # # "
&
# - "" 4 #
# #
*()*()+
/
!
% "
(*(*()+ 2
%
/
!
"
)9(9*()+ 2
!
% "
;
<
#
/
(( *()9
/
$
4 #%
% / .3 # %'
#
)1( *()0
%
.
# $
4 #
*0(+*()0
#
'
.
# $
4 # * ( *()+ #
% %
-# -
%
7
'
"
(+(0*()+ .
-# - =
# .
# $
4 #
'
.
# (+(0*()+
.
# $
4 #
'
.
# * (0*()+>
% (( *()9
%
$
#
<
#
%
#
, After passing of the impugned order, the case was adjourned by learned trial Court to 03.10.2019, for recording the evidence of the respondent. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners acknowledged that for evidence of defendant/ respondent, case was adjourned on 8 (eight) occasions i.e. 03.10.2019, 19.10.2019, 08.11.2019, 21.11.2019, 04.12.2019, 16.12.2019, 09.01.2020, 21.01.2020 and now the same is pending for 17.02.2020. Despite the above factual position, the present petition has been filed on 03.02.2020, while taking a somersault that evidence of the petitioners was erroneously closed on 18.09.2019. In the opinion of this Court, this petition can be termed, not only an after6thought exercise, but unhesitatingly, complete misuse of the process of the Court.
The facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, make it apparently clear that learned trial Court had deferred the hearing of matter time and again, without going through the previous zimni orders and virtually created a monument of adjournments which is not appreciable.
Learned trial Court instead of granting whole6sale adjournments to the respective parties ought to have proceeded in the matter in a meaningful way so that the resort of filing the present frivolous petition could have been avoided. Since the petitioners have already been granted more than the required number of opportunities by learned trial Court to conclude their evidence, therefore, this Court, does not find anything wrong with the impugned order while closing their evidence.
The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in ()*+,-,(..(4+ case (supra), is not helpful, in any manner, due to the following reasons:6 i) More than 35 opportunities were granted to the petitioners to conclude their evidence, including last opportunities on 3 occasions as well as issuing the warrnats, thus, learned trial Court was more than magnanimous in their favour; ii) Impugned order for closure of the evidence of the petitioners was passed on 18.09.2019 and thereafter, the case was adjourned on 8 occasions for recording the evidence of respondent; whereas present petition has been filed on 03.02.2020.
In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order is perfectly legal and justified; does not require any interference while exercising powers under Articles 227 of the Constitution. Since the present petition is found to be complete misuse of the process of the Court, therefore, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.25000/6 to be deposited by the petitioners with
the District Legal Services Authority, Ludhiana, within a period of four weeks from today.
The above observations may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court shall proceed in the matter expeditiously. Copy of this order be sent to learned District Judge, Ludhiana, with a request to sensitize the officer (s) concerned in such like matters. February 13, 2020 5"" 6 sanjay Whether speaking/reasoned yes/no Whether reportable?
Yes/no