Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 597 (JHR)

Bechu Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-06

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the office are ignored. 2. The present C.M.P has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.03.2022 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.-I), Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No. 72/2000 whereby the learned Court below has rejected the petition dated 29.07.2019 filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 27.06.2019 closing the defendants’ evidence and putting the case for argument. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the present writ petition. 4. The plaintiffs’ evidence was closed sometime in the year 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner (the defendant No.1) produced his evidence on 04.12.2012 and filed a petition on 12.02.2013 for calling certain documents from the concerned office. Thereafter, the petitioner did not produce any evidence till 27.06.2019 due to which the learned Court below closed his evidence on the said date. The petitioner then filed a petition on 29.07.2019 for recalling the order dated 27.06.2019. 5. The main ground taken by the petitioner seeking recall of the said order was that he was undergoing treatment at Medanta Hospital, Ranchi since August, 2014. On perusal of the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the learned Court below, it appears that the petitioner in support of the aforesaid contention, did not submit any medical document relating to his treatment at Medanta Hospital, Ranchi. 6. Though the petitioner has annexed the copies of the medical prescriptions of one Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha, Palamau at Daltonganj with the present C.M.P, yet has not brought on record any document in support of the fact that he was undergoing treatment at Medanta Hospital, Ranchi since August, 2014. Even on perusal of the copies of the said prescriptions, it appears that the petitioner was treated by Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha as outdoor patient in the year 2016, 2017 & 2019. No prescription of the year 2014 & 2015 has been annexed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The ailment mentioned by the doctor in the said prescriptions is not of such a serious nature which can be said to have prevented the petitioner from adducing his evidence from 2013 to 2019. 7. No prescription of the year 2014 & 2015 has been annexed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The ailment mentioned by the doctor in the said prescriptions is not of such a serious nature which can be said to have prevented the petitioner from adducing his evidence from 2013 to 2019. 7. Though it is true that every party has right to properly contest the suit before the Trial Court, yet gross negligence in contesting the suit cannot be condoned by the Court in a routine manner, unless the said party properly satisfies the Court that he/she was prevented from contesting the suit due to some compelling reasons. The suit is pending for last 22 years and its pendency between the year 2013 and 2019 is attributed to the petitioner for not producing the defendants’ witness. Hence, I see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the learned Court below. 8. The present C.M.P is accordingly dismissed.