Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1739 (RAJ)

Damodar Sharma v. Bhagat Ram

2018-08-16

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - The petitioner-plaintiff (hereafter the plaintiff) is aggrieved of the order dated 22-11-2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Mahanagar in Suit No.122/2014 closing his evidence as also the order dated 10-4-2018 dismissing his application for recall of the order dated 22-11-2017. 2. Heard counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned orders dated 22-11-2017 and 10-4-2018 passed by the trial court. 3. A perusal of the impugned order 22-11-2017 indicates that on the said day a Commissioner was appointed by the trial court for recording evidence of the plaintiffs son Girraj, but Girraj yet left the court without good cause or any prior information to the court. In the circumstances, considering the inexcusable conduct of the witness verging on contempt of court plaintiff evidence was closed and the case was fixed for defendant's evidence on 18-12-2017. 4. The plaintiff moved an application for recall of the order dated 22-11-2017 on the ground that the plaintiff and his son Girraj were busy in the marriage ceremony of plaintiff's niece and hence the plaintiff's witness could not appear in the court for his evidence on 22-11-2017. The defendant filed reply of opposition to the application. 5. The trial court considered the submissions of the parties. It noted that the suit was pending for plaintiff's evidence since 31-82016. Till 25-9-2017 several opportunities were provided to the plaintiff to lead his evidence. Only the evidence of the plaintiff Damodar was recorded. But Girraj though present in court on 2211-2017 and despite appointment of Commissioner for recording his evidence left the court without any information, the trial court took the view that the conduct of the plaintiff and his witness, was unacceptable. The plaintiff's evidence was thus closed. The plaintiff's counsel in support of the application for recall of the court's order dated 22-11-2017 relied upon the judgment in the case of Smt.Yashoda Vs. Inderchand Vimal Chand Jain [AIR 1974 Karanataka 100] wherein it was held that the application for recalling the order of closing evidence should not be cursorily dismissed. The plaintiff's evidence was thus closed. The plaintiff's counsel in support of the application for recall of the court's order dated 22-11-2017 relied upon the judgment in the case of Smt.Yashoda Vs. Inderchand Vimal Chand Jain [AIR 1974 Karanataka 100] wherein it was held that the application for recalling the order of closing evidence should not be cursorily dismissed. The trial court found that the said judgment was opposite to the facts of the case before it and in fact was based on false averments that Girraj could not be in court on 22-11-2017, when the courts order-sheet about that he was indeed present, a commissioner was appointed for recording his evidence and yet he perfunctorily left without as much as obtained the courts leaver/ permission. 6. Counsel for the plaintiff has not been able to point out any illegality, capriciousness or error of jurisdiction in the orders impugned which give out good reasons for closing the plaintiffs evidence and for dismissing the application for recall of the said order. In fact the impugned orders are just and appropriate in view of the conduct of the witness for the plaintiff which was showing complete disrespect to the court, its process and verged on contempt of court. No court can function in a climate of such witness impunity. To undo the impugned orders in the background of facts in which they have been passed would be destructive of the administration of justice and take away all authority of the trial courts discretion to regulate their proceedings for just, fair and early adjudication of cases before them. 7. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the trial court to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This court as the supervisory court has no jurisdiction to pass orders without legal foundation/ justification on the mere asking. Were it to be so, it would be destructive of the faith of the litigating public and destroy the confidence and authority of the trial courts. I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.