Delhi District Court
Cs No. 239/ vs Shri Yog Raj Dang on 24 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL RANA
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEII(NW):ROHINI:DELHI
CS No. 239/11
Sh. Rajinder Kumar
S/o Shri Shiv Parshad
R/o A3/1,Rana Pratap Bagh,
Delhi. ....Plaintiff
versus
Shri Yog Raj Dang
S/o Shri B.Dang
R/o A3/1, First Floor,
Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. ....Defendant
Date of filing : 23.01.2012
Date of decision : 24.03.2012
ORDER
1. By this order I shall decide the application U/s 151 CPC filed on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff for preponement of the next date of hearing i.e. 21.04.2012.
2. Brief facts as stated in the application are that the present suit is fixed for PE and the next date of hearing is 21.04.2012 and as there was an engagement ceremony of the CS NO. 239/11 PAGE NO. 1 OF 6 plaintiff on the last date of hearing i.e. 16.01.2012 and could not attend the court on the said date and requested that next date be preponed.
3. Notice of this application was issued to the defendant and reply has not been filed and counsel for the defendant has argued the present application straight away. It has been urged on behalf of the defendant/nonapplicant that present application is an abuse of process of law and has no merits and has been moved just to harass the defendant as plaintiff is in the habit of moving frivolous application and in the past also the application for early hearing was moved which was dismissed in default. It has been submitted that on the last date of hearing i.e 16.01.2012 the matter was fixed for plaintiff evidence and none had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and no steps were taken to lead the evidence and one more opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence and matter was adjourned for purpose already fixed i.e. plaintiff evidence on 21.04.2012 and now the present application for early hearing has been moved without any sufficient cause and reason and same is liable to be CS NO. 239/11 PAGE NO. 2 OF 6 dismissed with cost.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and their rival contentions and also perused the record.
5. In the instant matter, issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 21.10.2011 and after that three dates were given to the plaintiff to lead evidence and despite that no steps have been taken on behalf of the plaintiff and no evidence has been led on behalf of the plaintiff till date. It is pertinent to mention herein that on 16.01.2012, none had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff neither witness nor his counsel and defendant was present with his counsel and statement of defendant was also recorded and matter was adjourned for purpose already fixed i.e. PE on 21.04.2012.
6. In the instant case, it is also pertinent to mention herein that prior to the present application, plaintiff had also moved an application for early hearing on 19.01.2012 and the same was dismissed in default vide order 21.01.2012 and now the second application for early hearing has been moved without giving any reason or sufficient cause.
CS NO. 239/11 PAGE NO. 3 OF 6
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that a party to a suit is not at a liberty to determine when the matter to proceed further or matter should be heard and past conduct of the party in conducting the proceedings is an important circumstance which the court must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment or early hearing is made. The party to a suitwhether plaintiff or a defendant must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed, if they do not, they do so at their on peril. In so far as present case is concerned, the plaintiff ought to have been more serious and vigilant in prosecuting the suit and producing its evidence. The plaintiff has failed to take steps and produce witness and evidence on behalf of the plaintiff has not been led despite several opportunities. It is a matter of record that on 16.01.2012, none had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and no adverse order was passed against the plaintiff and matter was adjourned to 21.04.2012 for purpose already fixed i.e. PE.
8. I am also of the view, that plaintiff has failed to show CS NO. 239/11 PAGE NO. 4 OF 6 any sufficient cause for seeking early hearing, the only submission made on behalf of the plaintiff is that he could not attend the court on 16.01.2012 as there was engagement ceremony of his son. It is pertinent to mention herein that on the last date of hearing i.e. 18.02.2012, plaintiff and the defendants both had appeared and stated that their counsels are not available and sought adjournment and requested that matter be adjourned for today i.e. 24.03.2012 as son of the plaintiff was getting married on 12.03.2012. Statement of plaintiff as well as defendant were also recorded in this regard on 18.02.2012.
9. Considering the facts & circumstances of the present case, I find no justification in moving the present application for early hearing as several opportunities had been granted to the plaintiff in the past to lead evidence and despite that no steps have been taken on behalf of the plaintiff in the past. I am also of the view that no litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC and as no justifiable cause has been shown in the application for moving the present application for early hearing. The present application is a gross abuse of process of CS NO. 239/11 PAGE NO. 5 OF 6 law and has no merits as no sufficient cause has been shown for moving the present application. The present application lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. However, no order as to cost. Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SUNIL RANA) ADJII:ROHINI:DELHI 24.03.2012 CS NO. 239/11 PAGE NO. 6 OF 6