Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1022 (PNJ)

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Intron Ltd. And Anr.

2000-08-29

M.L.SINGHAL

body2000
Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. M/s Lipton India Ltd. (Company constituted under the Companies Act) through its duly authorised attorney filed suit for the sale of mortgage property for the recovery of Rs. 60 lacs against Intron Limited and M/s. Thackers Foods & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. It is civil suit No. 438 of 1991. Vide the following order dated 11.6.1998, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon ordered the closure of the plaintiffs evidence and posted the case to 13.7.98 for the evidence of the defendant at their own responsibility:- No PW is present. Request for adjournment. Perusal of order sheet reveals that on 27.8.1997, counsel for the plaintiff had made a statement to seek one more last opportunity for concluding its evidence. After that, the case was fixed for 16.3.1998. But no evidence of the plaintiff was produced and after that the case was adjourned for today. But today also no PW is present. Request for adjournment. There was no ground for adjournment. Counsel for the plaintiff has tendered documents Mark A to F. The question as to exhibition of these documents is left open and will be decided at the time of final arguments. Therefore, evidence of the plaintiff is closed by court order. Now the case is adjourned to 30.7.1998 for evidence of the defendant at own responsibility. 2. It is this order dated 11.6.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon which has been called in question through this revision by the plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner submits that this suit was instituted on 7.11.1991. Ad-interim exparte injunction was granted on 19.8.1993. After notice, this ad-interim injunction was vacated. Against the order vide which the ad-interim injunction was vacated, plaintiff went in appeal and appeal was allowed on 11.9.1995. He submits that till 11.9.95 the trial of the suit could not proceed further as the trial court file remained with the appellate court. He submits that after the decision of the ad-interim injunction matter by the appellate court, the suit came up before the trial court on 27.9.1995. On 27.9.1995, the case was adjourned to 29.4.1996 for the evidence of the plaintiff. Suit was taken up on 25.4.1996 since 29.4.1996 was declared holiday and the suit was adjourned to 26.9.1996. On 26.9.1996 since no witness was present/nor summoned, suit was adjourned to 20.2.1997 at the request of the plaintiff on its own responsibility. On 27.9.1995, the case was adjourned to 29.4.1996 for the evidence of the plaintiff. Suit was taken up on 25.4.1996 since 29.4.1996 was declared holiday and the suit was adjourned to 26.9.1996. On 26.9.1996 since no witness was present/nor summoned, suit was adjourned to 20.2.1997 at the request of the plaintiff on its own responsibility. On 20.2.1997, the suit was adjourned to 27.8.1997 as no PW was present and the adjournment was prayed for and the adjournment was given and the case was adjourned to 27.8.1997 for the entire evidence of the plaintiff and the last opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to produce its evidence. On 27.8.1997, the case was adjourned to 16.3.1998. On 27.8.1997, no PW was present and adjournment was requested. On the request of the counsel for the plaintiff who made statement that only one opportunity be given and in view of his statement, one more opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to conclude its entire evidence and the case was posted to 16.3.1998. On 16.3.1998, no PW was present as the lawyers had stayed away from work and the case was adjourned to 11.6.1998 for the entire evidence of the plaintiff. On 11.6.1998, the impugned order was passed. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit M/s Lipton India Ltd. was amalgamated with M/s Brook Bond India Ltd. and the scheme of amalgamation took sufficient time for sanctioning before the Honble Calcutta High Court. Thereafter, M/s Brook Bond India Ltd. was amalgamated with M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. and the scheme of amalgamation took sufficient time before the Honble Bombay High Court. During this time, there was dislocation of work and duties and affairs of the suit were not coordinated by the officers of the companies. 4. It is ture that the plaintiff has been very slack in prosecuting this suit. Plaintiff has virtually not shown much diligence in the prosecution of the suit. Still, as the rules of procedure are mere hand-mades of justice, the plaintiff should not be punished for its slackness or failure to exhibit due diligence in the prosecution of the suit. Looking to the larger interests of justice than mere disposal of the case, I think adequate opportunity should be given to the plaintiff for proving its claim which runs into 60 lacs of rupees. Plaintiff shall finish up its entire evidence on or before 2.12.2000. Looking to the larger interests of justice than mere disposal of the case, I think adequate opportunity should be given to the plaintiff for proving its claim which runs into 60 lacs of rupees. Plaintiff shall finish up its entire evidence on or before 2.12.2000. During this period the plaintiff shall be given two opportunities which shall be of adequate duration. Plaintiff shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the respondent if this order is to be availed of. 5. Revision allowed. 6. Parties/shall appear before the learned trial court on 11.9.2000.