Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 893 (HP)

Roshani v. Ramesh Kumar

2025-05-05

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- “a. That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Mandi in Rent Petition No.1 of 2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner/tenant for examining one official witness of Municipal Corporation, Mandi may kindly be allowed.” 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and the documents appended along with the present petition. 3. The petitioner is the respondent before the trial Court. In a landlord-tenant dispute, the petitioner is the tenant. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 19.03.2025, it is evident that the matter for production of petitioner’s witnesses (DWs) was for the first time listed on 26.07.2023. Thereafter, for the said purpose, the matter was listed on 13.09.2023, 24.11.2023, 03.01.2024, 09.05.2024 and 26.12.2024. On 26.12.2024, the trial Court had made it absolutely clear that if no witnesses appear on behalf of the present petitioner (DWs), then the evidence of the petitioner would be deemed to be closed by the order of the Court. When the matter was posted on 19.03.2025, no witnesses on behalf of the present petitioner (DWs) were present. Taking into account the numerous opportunities, which had been availed by the present petitioner before the trial Court for leading evidence, the fact that the matter pertained to the year 2017 and keeping in view the last order dated 26.12.2024, trial Court had closed the evidence of the petitioner (DWs) by impugned order dated 19.03.2025. 4. The sole contention urged before this Court is ill-health of the counsel. 5. Speedy trial requires an efficient justice dispensation system. For attaining the latter, we need to get out of an adjournment culture. The work culture needs to change. 6. Delay, dilatory tactics ensure non-dispensation of timely justice, thereby, shaking the trust and confidence of a litigant in the justice delivery system, Courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of a common man in the Institution entrusted with the administration of justice. 7. Any effort which weakens the system and shakes the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. 7. Any effort which weakens the system and shakes the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Non grant of repeated adjournments in a mechanical, routine manner is not being strict rather the same is an effective attempt at thwarting a work culture which weakens the system. 8. Repeated adjournments by the counsels in mechanical and routine manner affects timely dispensation of justice. As a consequence whereof, trust and confidence of the litigant in the justice delivery system is shaken. In order to create an efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law, Courts are expected to be diligent and take timely action. There is a need to change the work culture and to get out of adjournment culture, which has to a great extent shattered the confidence and trust of litigants in the justice delivery system. 9. 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 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 enjoined 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. 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 diligent 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. The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery 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. 10. The present case shows how the civil process has been abused by the present petitioner in the case at hand by seeking repeated adjournments. 10. 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. 11. In the case at hand, it would be appropriate to refer to Order 17 Rule 2(d). The same is being reproduced hereinbelow 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”, 12. From a perusal of the record appended with the petition, it is evident that conspicuous by absence is an application wherefrom the trial Court could have been satisfied that the petitioner, in the case at hand, could not have engaged another pleader in time. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 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) 16. Accordingly for the foregoing reasons, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous, applications, if any.