Bombay High Court
Vijaykumar S/O Dwarkadas Verma vs Omprakash S/O Ramniwas Verma And Others on 12 March, 2020
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
WP874.20.odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETN. NO. 874 OF 2020
Vijaykumar Dwarkadas Verma
-Vs.-
Omprakash Ramniwas Verma and others
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.N.Bhattad, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.H. D. Dangre, counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Mrunal Naik, AGP for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 12.03.2020 By this writ petition, the petitioner (original plaintiff) has challenged orders passed by the Court below on Exhibits-156 and 169, whereby applications filed by the petitioner to lead secondary evidence and purportedly under section 80 of the Evidence Act for admitting as substantive evidence, proof of the documents produced on record, have been rejected.
2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court below had recorded the findings about in the manner in which the proceedings have gone ahead in the Court below. It has found that during the course of the proceedings in the aforesaid suit filed way back in the year 2008, the petitioner has moved application after application, sometimes for the same relief before the Court below, giving an impression that the petitioner is interested more in keeping the litigation festering rather than making an earnest attempt for disposal of the litigation in terms of KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 23:39:19 ::: WP874.20.odt 2/5 the relief sought by him. The Court below has recorded the fact that the suit is old and it is pending since the year 2008 and also the fact that the petitioner closed his evidence by filing a pursis at Exhibit-154 and that defendant No.1 also closed his evidence by filing pursis at Exhibit-155. It is at this stage that such applications have been moved by the petitioner.
3. The Court below in para-6 of the impugned order passed below Exhibit-156 has recorded the attempts on the part of the petitioner to delay proceedings by repeatedly filing applications seeking diverse reliefs from the Court below. The said para reads as follows:
"6. Matter is too old and pending since 2008. The present application is filed after closing the evidence of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, it is necessary to consider the previous applications filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed notice to produce the documents i.e. all account books of the firm, Bank statements of the firm and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 at Exh. 46. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed application Exh. 53 for directing the defendants to produce original account book. The said application was rejected. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed application Exh. 55 for discovery of documents i.e. pass book, account book of the firm and other papers. The said application was also rejected. The plaintiff has filed application Exh. 60 for summons to the witness to produce the account statements of the partnership firm. The said application was allowed and thereafter, bank officer was examined. Evidence of bank officer was completed on 28.06.2016. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed application Exh. 94 for summons of calling documents of the bank account. The said application was rejected. The plaintiff has filed application Exh. 100 for recalling the bank officer. The said application was also rejected. The plaintiff has filed application Exh.101 for directing to produce the document of bank account of the firm situated at another bank. The said application was rejected. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed notice Exh. 109 to admit the documents. The plaintiff also filed application Exh. 117 for filing additional affidavit of evidence. The plaintiff again filed notice Exh. 122 to produce documents. The plaintiff has KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 23:39:19 ::: WP874.20.odt 3/5 filed application Exh.151 for issuance of summons to the bank officer of S.B.I., Branch Malkapur on the ground that, some documents obtained under the R.T.I. Act and same are filed on record. The said application was allowed and witness namely Ananda Patil was examined. Documents at Exh. 125 to 149 were exhibited in his evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff closed his evidence by filing pursis Exh. 154. The defendant No.1 closed his evidence by filing pursis Exh. 155. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the present application as well as notice to produce document at Exh. 159 and notice to admit documents Exh. 160."
4. Although the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Court below has committed an error in rejecting the said applications by the impugned order, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has invited attention of this Court to each order that finds reference in the above quoted para-6 of the impugned order.
5. A perusal of the orders referred to in the above quoted para shows that the petitioner has left no stone unturned to protract the litigation. Applications have been made for calling a witness and upon such applications being allowed and the proceedings going ahead, further applications have been made to recall the very same witness, which have been allowed in a few instances by the Court below by adopting a liberal approach. Despite this, on one excuse or the other, applications after applications have been moved by the petitioner indicating that he is interested more in keeping the litigation pending rather than expecting a decision on merits. It is surprising that after evidence of both the sides was closed, such applications were filed before the Court below for leading secondary evidence and another application purportedly KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 23:39:19 ::: WP874.20.odt 4/5 under section 80 of the Evidence Act. On a pointed query put to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to what prejudice the petitioner would suffer in the face of the impugned orders rejecting his applications at Exhibits-156 and 169, satisfactory response was not available. It is an admitted position that the relevant arbitration award in the present case is already an exhibit before the Court below and documents pertaining to bank record and depositions of witnesses in the form of Bank Officers are already on record and there is absolutely no ground made out for allowing the applications at Exhibits-156 and 169.
6. In this backdrop, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is justified in contending that the petitioner does not deserve indulgence from this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction. It is further pointed out that after the impugned orders were passed and the applications filed by the petitioner were rejected, another application was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order XVIII Rules 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Code for recalling of Bank Officer once again. This application also stood rejected by order dated 20/01/2020. The Court below has recorded in the said order that the matter is pending at the stage of final arguments and the petitioner is again seeking to reopen his evidence, which cannot be permitted. The aforesaid material clearly indicates that apart from the fact that there is no error committed by the Court below in passing the impugned orders, the petitioner is not desisting from making further attempts to delay the proceedings before the Court below.
KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 23:39:19 ::: WP874.20.odt 5/5
7. In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court below is directed to dispose of Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 30/04/2020.
JUDGE KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 23:39:19 :::