Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1097 (HP)

Akash Rani v. Sushant Prabhakar

2017-09-20

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 05.06.2017, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Una, in case RBT No. 767/17/12, titled Smt. Akash Rani and others Vs. Sushant Prabhakar and others, whereby right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence was closed on the ground that despite numerous opportunities having been granted to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had failed to lead evidence. Order so passed by the learned Court below inter alia stands impugned on the ground that the same is against the law and facts and further is passed on conjectures and further that closing of the evidence of the plaintiffs by the learned trial Court is an act of material illegality, irregularity and impropriety which is a result of misconstruing the facts of the case as well as the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The case was part heard on 30th of August, 2017, on which date, this Court had called for records of the case from the learned trial Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the records of the learned trial Court demonstrates that issues were framed in the case by learned trial Court on 16.10.2014. Thereafter the case was order to be listed for recording of statement of plaintiffs’ witnesses for 11.03.2015. On the said date, plaintiffs’ witnesses were not present and accordingly, the case was ordered to be listed for 04.08.2015 for the said purpose. On the said date also, no P.W. was present, however, an application was filed on behalf of plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, which application was ultimately disposed of by learned trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2016. While disposing of the said application, the case was ordered to be listed for recording statement of plaintiffs’ witnesses on 29.08.2016. On the said date also, no P.Ws were present and the case was ordered to be listed on 08.11.2016 for recording the statement of plaintiffs’ witnesses subject to same being the last opportunity. While disposing of the said application, the case was ordered to be listed for recording statement of plaintiffs’ witnesses on 29.08.2016. On the said date also, no P.Ws were present and the case was ordered to be listed on 08.11.2016 for recording the statement of plaintiffs’ witnesses subject to same being the last opportunity. On 08.11.2016, again no P.Ws were present and the case was ordered to be listed for 18.01.2017 for recording the statement of plaintiffs’ witnesses and it was clarified that no further opportunity shall be granted for the said purpose. Thereafter on 18.01.2017 also, no plaintiffs’ witnesses were present and the Court ordered the summoning of plaintiffs’ witnesses for 25.03.2017. On 25.03.2017, plaintiffs’ witnesses were present but were discharged as learned Counsel for the plaintiffs sought time for moving application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC to bring on record certain material. The case was accordingly ordered to be listed on 28.04.2017 and opportunity to file the application was granted subject to payment of cost of Rs.300/-. On 28.04.2017, no application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed and the case was ordered to be listed on 05.06.2017 for recording of remaining plaintiffs’ witnesses as a matter of last opportunity. On 05.06.2017, two plaintiffs’ witnesses, namely, Vipan Kumar and Praveen Kumari were present, however, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs vide separate statement stated not to examine the said witnesses. Taking into consideration the number of opportunities already granted to the plaintiffs to lead their evidence, learned trial Court on the said date, vide order dated 05.06.2017, closed the plaintiffs’ evidence and ordered the case to be listed on 17.08.2017 for recording the statement of defence witnesses. 4. This order is under challenge before me. Undoubtedly, the procedure is hand maiden of justice and the purpose of procedure is to facilitate the adjudication of a lis rather than to serve as an impediment in this regard. However, even then procedural law has sanctity which has to be adhered to and respected by both the litigants and the Court. Here is a case where eight opportunities were granted to the plaintiffs to lead their evidence, however, despite this, the plaintiffs did not lead their evidence. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that impugned order vide which evidence of the plaintiffs was closed is either against law or facts or is passed on conjectures. Here is a case where eight opportunities were granted to the plaintiffs to lead their evidence, however, despite this, the plaintiffs did not lead their evidence. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that impugned order vide which evidence of the plaintiffs was closed is either against law or facts or is passed on conjectures. Similarly, it cannot be said that learned trial Court committed material illegality, irregularity or impropriety by closing the evidence of the plaintiffs. 5. Order 17 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit, grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing provided no such adjournment shall be granted on more than three times to a party during the hearing of a suit. 6. In the present case, as has been discussed above, eight opportunities were granted by the learned trial Court to the plaintiffs to lead their evidence. However, as the plaintiffs failed to lead evidence despite so many opportunities having been granted to them, it is in these circumstances that learned trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiffs. A perusal of the records of the case demonstrates that no cogent cause stood demonstrated by the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court as to why their evidence should not have been closed on 05.06.2017. Not only this, even in this petition, there is no plausible explanation given by the plaintiffs as to why witnesses who were present on 05.06.2017, were not examined and what was the bona fide reasons on account of which, plaintiffs could not lead their evidence on the said date. Therefore, order so passed by learned trial Court does not suffers from any illegality or irregularity. Learned trial Court has closed the evidence of the plaintiffs after the plaintiffs failed to lead their evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities. 7. Therefore, order so passed by learned trial Court does not suffers from any illegality or irregularity. Learned trial Court has closed the evidence of the plaintiffs after the plaintiffs failed to lead their evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities. 7. Before parting with this judgment, this Court may observe that number of opportunities which a Court may grant to the parties to lead their respective evidence have to be reasonable and in case, despite three opportunities having been granted, the Court is inclined to give more opportunities to the parties to lead their respective evidence, then the Court should in the order itself incorporate the reasons as to why the indulgence is being shown by the Court to the party concerned. This will not only deter the parties from unnecessarily prolonging the matters but will also clothe the orders so passed by the learned Courts with reasonableness because reasons which have led the Court to grant further opportunity shall stand incorporated in the order itself. 8. In view of above discussion, as I do not find any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to return the records of the learned trial Court forthwith. Parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on the date already fixed by learned trial Court. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.