Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 327 (MP)

Vasudev Mirdha v. Vidyaram

2023-03-02

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2023
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 7.10.2022 passed by SDM Gohad District Bhind in Case No.34/2021/145 Cr.P.C. 2. By the impugned order, the rights of the petitioners to lead evidence has been closed. The petitioners have filed complete order sheets of the Court of S.D.M., Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.). From the order sheets, it appears that the case was fixed for the first time on 19.9.2022 for recording of evidence of the petitioners. On 19.9.2022, the Presiding Officer was on leave and, accordingly, the case was adjourned to 22.9.2022. However, the case was taken up on 23.09.2022. The petitioners filed certain documents which were not accepted because the same were not supported by an affidavit and the case was fixed for 26.9.2022. On 26.9.2022, an application under section 296 of Cr.P.C. was filed and the case was fixed for 30.9.2022 for arguments on the said application. On 30.9.2022, the application filed under section 296 of Cr.P.C. was allowed and the case was fixed for cross-examination of the petitioner and his witnesses on 3.10.2022. On 3.10.2022, the case was adjourned for 6.10.2022, however, no reasons were assigned for such adjournment. 3. On 06.10.2022, the case was adjourned as the Presiding Officer was busy in another cases and the case was fixed for 7.10.2022. On 7.10.2022, the right of the petitioner for his cross-examination was closed. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on 7.10.2022, the Civil Court was closed and, therefore, the counsel for the petitioners could not appear before the Court of SDM, Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) in time. Furthermore, on most of the occasions, the Presiding Officer himself was on leave which is evident from the previous order sheets of the said proceedings. 4. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to keep himself and his witnesses present for cross-examination as their affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC have already been filed. 5. Shri Manish Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, has opposed the prayer for an opportunity. 4. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to keep himself and his witnesses present for cross-examination as their affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC have already been filed. 5. Shri Manish Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, has opposed the prayer for an opportunity. However, it is submitted that in case if the Court is inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to keep himself and his witnesses present for cross-examination, then some date may be fixed for appearance of the parties with clear stipulation that no further adjournment shall be granted. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. From the order-sheets, it appears that the case was fixed for the first time on 19.9.2022 for the cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses. On the said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and on subsequent dates, other proceedings were undertaken and ultimately the case was fixed for crossexamination of the plaintiff and his witnesses on 3.10.2022. On 3.10.2022, the case was adjourned without assigning any reason. On 6.10.2022, the case was adjourned because the Presiding Officer was busy in other cases. The order sheet dated 06.10.2022 bears the signature of the petitioner which clearly means that the petitioner was present for cross-examination, but it was the fault on the part of the Presiding Officer, therefore, he was not cross-examined. 8. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 7.10.2022. On 7.10.2022, the right of the petitioner to lead evidence was closed. The order-sheets clearly show that the closure of the right of the petitioner was harsh and was not warranted. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 7.10.2022 is hereby set aside. 10. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of SDM, Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) on 28.3.2023. It is directed that petitioner shall keep himself and his witnesses present before the SDM, Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) for their cross-examination. The SDM, Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) is directed to positively take up the matter on 28.3.2023 and shall not adjourn the matter on the ground of his involvement in other cases. It is made clear that cross-examination of the witnesses shall be completed on 28.3.2023 itself, even if the Court is required to sit after working hours. No further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner to keep himself and his witnesses for cross examination. It is made clear that cross-examination of the witnesses shall be completed on 28.3.2023 itself, even if the Court is required to sit after working hours. No further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner to keep himself and his witnesses for cross examination. 11. With aforesaid observation, petition is finally disposed of.