Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 693 (RAJ)

Bajrang Lal v. Saroj Kanwer

2002-04-02

B.S.CHAUHAN

body2002
Honble CHAUHAN, J.–This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.7.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nokha, District Bikaner by which the application filed by the petitioner to recall the order dated 14.5.2001 to proceed exparte against him has been rejected. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that an application for adjournment was filed on 14.5.2001 on behalf of the petitioner-defendant on the ground that he was ill and not able to attend the court. The adjournment was refused and the order was passed to proceed ex parte against him. Application has been rejected on the ground that there was no sufficient reason to recall the said order. While passing the order rejecting the application, the trial court took into consideration the earlier conduct of the petitioner and made observations in this respect also. (3). Shri Sajjan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted the trial court ought to have given atleast one opportunity to the petitioner on the ground of illness and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. (4). On the contrary, Mr. Shrimali, learned counsel for the non- petitioner, has submitted that considering the past conduct of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed in correct perspective and the facts do not warrant any interference by this Court.1. (5). I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (6). Seeking unnecessary adjournment on non-existent grounds with the oblique motive to delay the trial of the suit, ``are instances of contumacious conduct, tending to interfere with administration of justice, inviting action of contempt. (Vide Ramji Lal Sharma vs. Civil Judge (1). (7). Tendency to procrastinate proceedings by seeking adjournment deserve deprication but at the same time sufficiency of reasons for seeking adjournment requires to be examined. (Vide Surendra Kumar vs. Rajendra Kumar Aggarwal (2). (8). Undoubtedly, taking unnecessary adjournments causes problems to the Court and inconvenience to the other party, but courts should adopt an attitude not to penalise the party on that count. Moreso, procedural ill can be adequately compensated in terms of costs. (Vide K. Patel Chemo Phama P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Laxmibai Ramchandra Iyer & Ors. (3) and Chief General Manager, Telecom & Anr. vs. G. Mohan Prasad & Ors. (4). (9). In Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Moreso, procedural ill can be adequately compensated in terms of costs. (Vide K. Patel Chemo Phama P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Laxmibai Ramchandra Iyer & Ors. (3) and Chief General Manager, Telecom & Anr. vs. G. Mohan Prasad & Ors. (4). (9). In Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. vs. Ram Dutt and Anr. (5), this Court has taken a view that while considering the application of such a nature, the Court must examine the nature of the suit as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. (10). In State Bank of India vs. Kumari Chandra Govindji (6), the Honble Supreme Court considered the scope of Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and observed as under :- ``In ascertaining whether a party had reasonable opportunity to put forward his case or not, one should not ordinarily go beyond the date on which the adjournment is sought for. The earlier adjournment, if any, granted would certainly be for reasonable ground and that aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable ground. The mere fact that in the past adjournments had been sought for could not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds, the same would have been rejected. (11). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments referred to above, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met if the petitioner-defendant is further given an opportunity to examine himself and the other witnesses on payment of reasonable cost. (12). The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.7.2001 is set aside and the application dated 10.7.2001 for recalling the order dated 14.5.2001 is allowed at the cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the petitioner- defendant to the non-petitioner-plaintiff within a period of two weeks from today. (12). The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.7.2001 is set aside and the application dated 10.7.2001 for recalling the order dated 14.5.2001 is allowed at the cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the petitioner- defendant to the non-petitioner-plaintiff within a period of two weeks from today. The learned trial court is requested to fix an early date giving an opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to lead evidence and if he presents himself and brings the witnesses for examination, their statements should be recorded on day-to- day basis and no adjournment should be granted to him unless there are compelling circumstances for the same and he files the sufficient proof in support of application for adjournment. (13). The petition stands disposed of accordingly.