Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 760 (HP)

Madhusudan Lal Chopra v. Bhupinder Bhawan Trust

2025-04-21

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. Caveat Petition No. 115 of 2025 Caveat discharged. The caveat petition stands disposed of. The present petition has been filed laying a challenge to order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Case No. 139 of 2019 whereby the evidence of the petitioner/respondent before the trial Court stands closed vide orders of the Court. 2. Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. In order to support the impugned order, the caveator has placed on record the certified copies of the trial Court demonstrating the numerous occasions on which an adjournment was sought by the present petitioner to lead evidence and copies of application filed by the present petitioners before the trial Court seeking an adjournment. 3. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. 4. Vide order dated 24.04.2024, the present respondent had closed their evidence. Only thereafter was a right given to the present petitioner to summon his witnesses by filing a list thereof. Witnesses were to be summoned on 11.07.2024. On 11.07.2024, no witnesses on behalf of the present petitioners were present before the trial Court as steps had not been taken. Further time of seven days were granted for taking steps, the matter was thereafter posted for 06.09.2024. 5. On 06.09.2024, no evidence on behalf of the present petitioner was present as yet again steps had not been taken. Further time was granted on 06.09.2024 for producing evidence on 11.11.2024. Yet again, no steps were taken within stipulated period of one week as was granted on 06.09.2024. Hence, on 11.11.2024, no evidence was present. 6. However, on 11.11.2024, an application was filed on behalf of the present petitioner seeking an adjournment. For the reasons stated in the application, the same was allowed and time for producing evidence was extended. While granting an extension, it was made clear that the evidence now be produced on self responsibility. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 08.01.2025. 7. Yet again no evidence on behalf of the present petitioner was present despite having been afforded last opportunity to lead evidence on self responsibility. However, on the said date, an application was filed stating therein that the present petitioner had undergone dialysis in Delhi and hence was confined to bed as he had been devised bed rest. 7. Yet again no evidence on behalf of the present petitioner was present despite having been afforded last opportunity to lead evidence on self responsibility. However, on the said date, an application was filed stating therein that the present petitioner had undergone dialysis in Delhi and hence was confined to bed as he had been devised bed rest. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, by way of an exceptional opportunity, the matter was now posted for 7 th March, 2025 for producing the evidence of the present petitioner on self responsibility. 8. On 07.03.2025, when the matter was listed, no witnesses on behalf of the present petitioner was present in the Court. An application on behalf of the present petitioner was filed seeking an adjournment. The reason cited in the application being that the counsel for the petitioner was unavailable on account of an eye operation. In the application, it was submitted that from 27 th February, 2025 to 15 th March, 2025, the counsel for the petitioner would be unavailable on account of eye operation. 9. In the aforesaid narrated circumstances in the case at hand and the fact that no medical record had been placed on record, the application was vehemently opposed by the present respondents before the trial Court. The objection being that no medical record had been appended alongwith with the present application to demonstrate the averments being made in the application. 10. Other than the aforesaid, keeping in view the last order dated 08.01.2025 whereby one last opportunity by way of an exception had been granted to the present petitioner to lead evidence on self responsibility and it had been made absolutely clear in the said order that no further adjournment shall be given for any reason whatsoever the trial court was of the view that no further opportunity could be granted to the present petitioner. Besides the aforesaid, keeping in view the track record of the present petitioner in leading evidence as is demonstrable from orders dated 24.4.2024, 11.7.2024, 16.9.2024, 11.11.2024, 20.12.2024 and 08.01.2025. The closing of evidence was sought to be justified by the trial Court. 11. The present case shows how the civil process has been abused by the present petitioner in the case at hand by seeking repeated adjournments. The closing of evidence was sought to be justified by the trial Court. 11. The present case shows how the civil process has been abused by the present petitioner in the case at hand by seeking repeated adjournments. Orders 17 Rule 1 of the CPC specifically provides that not more than three adjournments shall be granted during the hearing of the suit. In my considered view even the three adjournments cannot be granted as a matter of right. 12. In the case at hand, it would be appropriate to refer to Order 17 Rule 2 sub rule (d). The same is being reproduced here-in-below for a ready reference:- “(d). where the illness of a pleader or his inability to conduct the case for any reason, other than his being engaged in another Court, is put forward as a ground for adjournment, the Court shall not grant the adjournment unless it is satisfied that the party applying for adjournment could not have engaged another pleader in time”, 13. From a perusal of the application filed before the trial Court seeking adjournment on account of eye operation of the counsel for the petitioner i.e. Annexure P-3, it is evident that conspicuous by absence is an averment in the application wherefrom the trial Court could have been satisfied that in given circumstance, the petitioner in the case at hand could not have engaged another pleader in time. 14. In the case at hand, the petitioners have been dragging on the proceedings unnecessarily before the trial Court by taking adjournments continuously. The same is detrimental to the interest of the other party. Such callousness, indifference and laxity on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his case before the trial Court cannot be tolerated. The litigant must help the Court by an effective participation for expeditious disposal of the case. 15. In the case at hand after having taken numerous opportunities for leading evidence, the petitioner can hardly challenge the correctness of the impugned order more particularly on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or that the trial Court has wrongly exercised jurisdiction. 16. 15. In the case at hand after having taken numerous opportunities for leading evidence, the petitioner can hardly challenge the correctness of the impugned order more particularly on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or that the trial Court has wrongly exercised jurisdiction. 16. It has been held by this Court in Shamsher Singh v. Surat Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 2298 that if a party does not lead evidence despite repeated opportunities granted to it, then the Court is not supposed to wait infinitely for the party to lead its evidence. It is a conscious act of a party not to lead its evidence and the consequences thereof have to be borne by the party. It was observed:- “4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court along with the record of the case, in my considered view, the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is not sustainable in law. It is a matter of record that the evidence of the defendant was closed by the learned Trial Court after affording him more than three opportunities to lead evidence. If a party does not lead evidence despite reasonable opportunities granted to it, then the Court is not supposed to wait till eternity for the party to lead its evidence. It is a conscious act of a party not to lead its evidence and the consequences thereof have to be borne by the party. This extremely important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court while ordering that the defendant be granted an opportunity to lead evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. Granting of repeated adjournments in routine manner and how it affects the justice delivery system came to be considered before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal and Others, 2021 (12) SCC 612 , wherein, it has been held as under:- “9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and 6 mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and 6 mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. 10. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and who have come for justice and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants. 11. Take an example of the present case. Suit was for eviction. Many a times the suits are filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of the landlord. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement may be defeated. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement may be defeated. The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery 7 system and instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects the rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. 12. Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained. 18. Accordingly for the foregoing reasons, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous, applications, if any.