JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). OMP No. 4058 of 2013 The present application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) for ‘recalling/correction/modification’ of order dated 20th June, 2013, passed by this Court, has been moved, in fact, by the applicant/defendant No. 2, but wrongly stated to be on behalf of applicants/defendants No. 2 and 3. For the sake of convenience, the applicant shall hereinafter be referred to as defendant No. 2. 2.It shall be advantageous to notice at the very outset the aforesaid order dated 20th June, 2013, which reads as under: “On 20.3.2012, the following order was passed in this matter in OMP No. 388 of 2011:- “OMP No. 388 of 2011 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) on behalf of the newly added defendant No. 2 (legal representative of original defendant No. 2) for recalling plaintiff’s witnesses for cross-examination and for permission to lead evidence on the issues already framed. 2. The backdrop against which the present application has been moved is that late Shri Hari Krishan Kanoi was impleaded as original defendant No. 2 in the suit. Subsequently, on his death his son, Mr. Udit Kanoi, was brought on record as his legal representative as defendant No. 2. Consequently, he was permitted to file additional written statement. It was thereafter that a prayer was made on his behalf for framing additional issues, but the same was declined, vide order dated 04.04.2011, mainly on the ground that the defence raised by the present defendant No. 2, Mr. Udit Kanoi, was duly covered under the issues already framed. Being aggrieved, he carried the matter in appeal by way of LPA No. 179 of 2011, decided on September, 2011, though unsuccessfully. 3. It is basic principle of civil jurisprudence that the parties can be permitted to lead evidence emanating out of the issues framed in the lis. In the present case, as already noticed, issues had already been famed when original defendant No. 2, late Shri Hari Krishan Kanoi, was alive and was contesting the suit. It was during his lifetime that evidence for the plaintiff was led and to rebut the same the said original defendant No. 2, Shri Hari Krishan Kanoi, had also led evidence in defence. The present defendant No. 2, Mr. It was during his lifetime that evidence for the plaintiff was led and to rebut the same the said original defendant No. 2, Shri Hari Krishan Kanoi, had also led evidence in defence. The present defendant No. 2, Mr. Udit Kanoi, came in picture only thereafter. Now since his prayer for framing additional issues has already been declined vide order dated 04.04.2011, which order has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 179 of 2011, there are no additional issues and we are left with the ssues as already framed. The parties have already led evidence on these issues. In such circumstances, to my mind, the prayer of the present defendant No. 2, Mr. Udit Kanoi, for recalling plaintiff’s witnesses for further cross-examination and permitting him to lead additional evidence in defence cannot be granted. In support of his contentions, as above, the present defendant No. 2, Mr. Udit Kanoi has placed reliance upon (1) K.S. Krishna Sarma vs. Kifayat Ali, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 591, (2) Abdul Razak (dead) through LRs and others vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 432 and (3) K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 275. However, the facts of the cases relied upon are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. 4. In view of the above, the application is dismissed. 5. The case be now listed for final arguments on 14th May, 2012. Longer date given on the request of the learned counsel for the parties. Copy dasti.” 2.Thereafter the following order came to be passed on 10.7.2012:- “Long adjournment is prayed for, as defendants intend to file an S.L.P. against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. List after eight weeks.” 3.It appears that SLP was intended to be filed by contesting defendants No.1 to 4 to challenge judgment dated 15.5.2012, passed by a Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 136 of 2012, Udit Kanoi Vs. H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others arising out the aforesaid order dated 20.3.2012 in OMP No. 388 of 2011. 4.Then on 12.10.2012 the case was adjourned to 26.12.2012 on the joint request on behalf of the parties. H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others arising out the aforesaid order dated 20.3.2012 in OMP No. 388 of 2011. 4.Then on 12.10.2012 the case was adjourned to 26.12.2012 on the joint request on behalf of the parties. 5.Again on 26.12.2012 it was represented on behalf of contesting defendants No.1 to 4 that “though, SLP is stated to be filed in the Apex Court, however, learned counsel on both sides are not aware about its status” and accordingly the Court passed the following order:- “Though, SLP is stated to be filed in the apex Court, however, learned counsel on both sides are not aware about its status. The suit is old one and listed today for final hearing, however, in view of the pendency of the SLP before the apex Court, the same deserves to be adjourned to some other date, as prayed on both sides. Post on 19th March, 2013. This Court be apprised about the current status of the SLP filed before the apex Court on the next date.” 6.Still further, on 19.3.2013 the learned counsel prayed for and was granted four weeks time for ascertaining the status of SLP pending in the Apex Court. 7.However, again on the request on behalf of contesting defendants No.1 to 4, the following order was passed on the previous date of hearing, i.e. 10.6.2013:- “On the request of the learned counsel for the contesting defendants, to enable him to ascertain status of the SLP said to have been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging order dated 20.03.2012, passed by this Court in OMP No. 388 of 2011, and inform whether there is any stay therein, list during next week. However, it shall be last opportunity in this regard.” 8.It appears that in the above order dated 10.6.2013, the reference regarding filing of SLP has inadvertently been made qua order dated 20.3.2012 in OMP No. 388 of 2011, instead of judgment dated 15.5.2012 in LPA No. 136 of 2012. 9.Today Mr. However, it shall be last opportunity in this regard.” 8.It appears that in the above order dated 10.6.2013, the reference regarding filing of SLP has inadvertently been made qua order dated 20.3.2012 in OMP No. 388 of 2011, instead of judgment dated 15.5.2012 in LPA No. 136 of 2012. 9.Today Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for contesting defendants No.1 to 4 states at the bar that no SLP has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, meaning thereby that the representations made on behalf of contesting defendants No.1 to 4 that such SLP was filed in the Apex Court and they had been seeking time to enquire about the status thereof, were mere false projections seemingly made to gain time and thus delay final disposal of the suit, which relates to the year 2003 and was ripe for final hearing long back, as is apparent from the following order passed on 26.2.2009, which amounts to gross abuse of process of law:- “On 25th September, 2008 a direction had been issued by this Court that power of attorney on behalf of legal representative No.2(a) be filed in this Court within one week failing which actual date notice be sent to him. No power of attorney has been filed. The Registrar (Inspection) vide his order dated 30th December, 2008 has noticed that legal representative No.2(a), Udit Kanoi, has refused to take notice. In these circumstances, he is proceeded exparte. List the case for arguments in due course.” 10. However, even after passing of the above order dated 26.2.2009 to list the case for final arguments in due course it remained pending owing to filing of various applications on behalf of contesting defendant No. 2 (legal representative of original defendant No.2). 11. Against the foregoing background, contesting defendants No.1 to 4 are saddled with costs of ! 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) for deliberately wasting valuable time of the court spanning more than a year reckoned from the dismissal of the aforesaid LPA No. 136 of 2012 against the aforesaid order dated 20.3.2012 in OMP No. 388 of 2011, vide judgment dated 15.5.2012. Costs be deposited with the H.P. High Court Bar Association on or before the next date of hearing to be fixed hereinafter. 12.The case be now listed for final hearing on 18th July, 2013.” 3. Costs be deposited with the H.P. High Court Bar Association on or before the next date of hearing to be fixed hereinafter. 12.The case be now listed for final hearing on 18th July, 2013.” 3. In support of the prayer for recalling/correction/modification of the order dated 20th June, 2013, defendant No. 2 has placed reliance upon two authorities of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Ashok Kumar Mittal vs. Ram Kumar Gupta and another, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 656 and Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 455, and two decisions of this Court, one reported as M/s. Rai Singh Roshan Lal Negi and others vs. Surjit Bawa and others, 1986 Shimla Law Cases 187 and CMPMO No. 420 of 2009, Shri Het Ram Garg vs. Mahesh Ohri and others, decided on November 23rd, 2009. 4. In all these authorities the emphasis is on the powers of the Court to impose costs for compensating the other side for the loss occasioned to it owing to the acts of the party saddled with costs. However, in the present case costs of ! 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) have been imposed upon defendant No. 2 for the gross misuse of the process of law resorted to by him which need not be reiterated once again as the same has been dealt with quite comprehensively in the aforesaid order dated 20th June, 2013. Furthermore, another reason for imposition of costs was deliberate wastage of valuable time of the Court spanning more than a year reckoned from the dismissal of LPA No. 136 of 2012, as stated in para 12 of order dated 20th June, 2013. Another aspect which prevailed with this Court to quantify the costs was that in a suit for recovery of ! 40,20,631/- (rupees forty lac twenty thousand six hundred thirty one only) filed as far back as the year 2003, costs of ! 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) cannot at all said to be disproportionate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 5. In view of the above, there is no lawful cause or basis for recalling/correction/modification of order dated 20th June, 2013. The application is accordingly dismissed.