Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1667 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh & others v. Sukhwinder Singh Lally

2012-12-01

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
L. N. Mittal, J. :— (ORAL) CM No. 29615-CII of 2012 The application is allowed and Annexure P-4 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendants have assailed order dated 23.07.2012 Annexure P-3 passed by the trial Court thereby closing evidence of the defendants by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioners prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioners for their evidence at own responsibility. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer but the same cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial Court reveals that the defendants have been granted ten opportunities for their evidence. According to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are required to be granted to a party for its evidence. The said provision being rule of procedure may be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. However, at the same time, the said provision cannot be made completely redundant by granting unlimited large number of opportunities to a party for its evidence. This provision has been introduced to curtail the delay in disposal of cases because the delay is attracting widespread criticism and rightly so. This salutary provision, therefore, should be kept in view while granting number of opportunities to a party for its evidence. In the instant case, not only the defendants have availed of ten opportunities for their evidence but also after availing seven or eight opportunities for their evidence, they moved a frivolous application for appointment of handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of Lamber Singh (said to be attesting witness of the agreement in question). Disposal of the said application resulted in many unnecessary and avoidable adjournments. The only interest of the defendants is to delay the disposal of the suit which was filed in January, 2007 i. e. five years eleven months ago. Counsel for the petitioners stated that according to agreement, set up by respondent-plaintiff, for specific performance whereof the suit has been filed, sale consideration was about Rs.4,00,00,000/- and earnest money of Rs.35,00,000/- was allegedly paid by plaintiff to defendants. Counsel for the petitioners stated that according to agreement, set up by respondent-plaintiff, for specific performance whereof the suit has been filed, sale consideration was about Rs.4,00,00,000/- and earnest money of Rs.35,00,000/- was allegedly paid by plaintiff to defendants. This appears to be the reason for delaying the disposal of the suit because the defendants are utilising the alleged earnest money paid to them as well as using the suit land. Even in the instant revision petition, false averment was made at the time of first motion hearing on 08.08.2012 when counsel for the petitioners stated that for the first time, the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants on 30.05.2012 for 14.06.2012. Counsel for the petitioners was directed to place on record all zimini orders of the trial Court since the date of closing of evidence of plaintiff till passing of the impugned order. Even for complying with the said order, the petitioners availed of four adjournments, obviously to achieve their motive of delaying the suit. Moreover, false statement of fact was made on 08.08.2012 that the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants for the first time for 14.06.2012 although, in fact, evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 16.05.2011 and the case was fixed for evidence of defendants for 24.05.2011. The defendants had availed of eight opportunities prior to 30.05.2012. For reasons stated hereinbefore, I find no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial Court. In fact, the trial court was forced to pass the impugned order by the defendants who failed to lead their evidence in spite of grant of more than sufficient number of opportunities for the purpose. The revision petition is not only meritless but is completely frivolous and is accordingly dismissed in limine.