Allahabad High Court
Hari Saran Shankar Lal Srivastava vs Vinod Bihari And 5 Others on 27 January, 2020
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 3 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 683 of 2020 Petitioner :- Hari Saran Shankar Lal Srivastava Respondent :- Vinod Bihari And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narayan Dutt Shukla,Shyam Lal,Sri R.C. Singh (Senior Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- Shriprakash Shrivastava Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By the order dated 12.09.2019 assailed in this petition rendered by the learned revisional court in Civil Revision No. 64 of 2018 (Hari Shankar Lal Vs Paras Nath Srivastava and others), the judgment of the learned trial court dated 15.12.2017 allowing the application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC has been affirmed. The learned courts below have found that the absence of the respondents/applicants before the learned trial court was occasioned by valid reasons. On account of the illness the said parties could not appear on the appointed date which resulted in the suit being dismissed for non prosecution. The suit was restored to its original number after the courts below found the reasons for absence to be sufficient.
No perversity in the findings of the courts below could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a fundamental tenet of good administration of justice that both the parties be heard on merits and the courts should avoid non suiting the parties on hyper technical grounds. Rejecting matters on hyper technical grounds without adjudicating the same on merits would lead to miscarriage of justice. There is no palpable infirmity in the judgment of the learned courts below which would warrant interference by this court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
At this stage, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shyam Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the relief sought for but recasts his relief. He prays that the learned trial court be directed to decide the proceedings within a stipulated period of time.
Sri Shriprakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents does not object to the aforesaid prayer to establish the bonafides of the respondents.
Considering the fact that the parties have been litigating since the year 1977 as is contended by counsels for both the parties the matter is remitted to the learned trial court to execute the following directions:
(I) The learned trial court / the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur, is directed to decide the Case No. 20 of 80 (Paras Nath Srivastava Vs Hari Sharan Shankar) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(II) The learned trial court / the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.
(III) In case any adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the learned trial court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur, shall impose costs not below Rs. 5,000/- for each adjournment.
(IV) In case the counsel for any party does not appear before the learned trial court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur, on any date on the ground of strike of advocates, the learned trial court / the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur shall not permit such counsel (of either party) to appear in this case on future dates.
(V) The learned trial court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur, shall proceed with the trial on a day to day basis, if required, to ensure that the above stipulated time period of four months is strictly adhered to.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.1.2020 Pravin