M/S S. K. Engineering Works And Another vs Unknown on 21 March, 2012

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S S. K. Engineering Works And Another vs Unknown on 21 March, 2012

1. The tenants are before this court challenging the order dated 20.7.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by them for permission to lead secondary evidence to prove partnership deed dated 1.4.1974, was dismissed.

2. The proceedings arise out of an eviction petition filed by respondents No. 1 and 2-landlords before the learned Rent Controller in December, 1995, inter-alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent, the premises having become unfit and unsafe for human use and occupation, material impairment in value and utility of the rented premises and on the ground of subletting. It was during the course of proceedings in the aforesaid rent petition that application was filed by the petitioners for leading secondary evidence to prove partnership deed dated 1.4.1974. The prayer having been rejected, the order is challenged before this court.

Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [2]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Rent Controller had committed illegality and irregularity in not permitting the petitioners to prove the partnership deed dated 1.4.1974 by leading secondary evidence on the premise that 45 effective opportunities had already been granted to the petitioners to lead evidence. In fact, vide order dated 11.2.2009, the issues were re-framed by the court. Thereafter, both the parties were to be permitted to lead evidence. Respondents No. 1 and 2-landlords concluded their evidence on 20.2.2009. Immediately thereafter the petitioners filed application on 2.3.2009 seeking permission to prove partnership deed dated 1.4.1974 by leading secondary evidence. The same would have shown that Shiv Kumar, against whom the allegation of sub- letting is there, was in fact a partner in the firm. The original partnership deed was lost in the Income-tax Department. The plea regarding partnership deed was taken even in the reply originally filed. The learned Rent Controller had gone wrong in noticing that the case was not fixed for evidence of the petitioners. As there was some error in recording of the order, application for correction of the order was filed after the impugned order was passed by the learned Rent Controller. Even if there is some delay, respondents No. 1 and 2-landlords can be compensated with cost. Reliance was placed upon Satnam Singh Sharma v. Tarloki Nath Kalia and another, AIR 1974 P&H 287.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2-landlords submitted that a petition for eviction of the petitioners and respondent No. 3 filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 way back in December, 1995 is still pending. In fact, the petitioners are the only beneficiaries of delay as they are in possession of the property. The evidence, which is sought to be led now, i.e., partnership deed dated 1.4.1974 was, in fact, pleaded even in the reply originally filed to the eviction petition. The petitioners had enough opportunity to prove the same in the evidence already led. The same is otherwise also not relevant for the reason that in a suit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and respondent No. 3 from changing the nature of the property by raising construction or alteration in any manner on 20.11.1995, Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [3] similar plea was sought to be raised by the petitioners and respondent No.

3. The same was negatived by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala vide judgment dated 24.5.2001 (during the pendency of present eviction petition). No evidence was led by the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 to prove the relationship with petitioner No. 2-Shiv Kumar, who is sought to be claimed as one of the partners in the firm. Even the appeal filed by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 -Shiv Kumar against the judgment and decree dated 24.5.2001 was dismissed as withdrawn by them on 8.5.2003. The findings of civil court are binding on the Rent Controller. Even if we go by what has been claimed by the counsel for the petitioners that new issues had been framed on 11.2.2009, the onus of which was on the petitioners, still in support thereof only the pleadings or the judgment pertaining to the earlier litigation could be tendered. In fact, the judgment in civil suit is already on record as Ex. PX. The partnership deed, as is sought to be produced, is not relevant for the purpose. Even otherwise, the aforesaid partnership deed was well within knowledge of the petitioners when the evidence was led originally and numerous opportunities were granted. The petitioners having failed to produce the same at the relevant time cannot be permitted to fill in the lacuna at this late stage.

5. In response to the contentions of learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if a new issue had been framed, the petitioners cannot be restricted to lead evidence. The value of same is not to be judged at this stage. The judgment of the civil court in the earlier case is not relevant as it was merely a suit for injunction.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

7. The case in hand has a chequered history. Before this court proceeds to decide the issue on merits, a reference to the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted is required to be given.

8. After filing of the eviction petition, notice was issued to the petitioners and respondent No. 3 (tenants) on 8.12.1995. After service of the tenants, appearance was put in and reply was filed on 22.7.1996. The Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [4] issues were framed on 2.9.1996. The case was listed for evidence of the landlord for the first time on 13.11.1996. The landlords closed their evidence on 11.8.1998. Thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the tenants.

9. On 8.9.1998, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order. The order is being reproduced as could be read as the same is handwritten.

"No AW is present. A date is requested granted to come up on 14.10.98 for evidence of the Dws. Present applicant witnesses bound down for the date fixed at own responsibility."

10. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 14.10.1998, one RW was present and examined. Thereafter on three dates of hearing, no RW was present.

11. On 13.1.1999, one RW was examined partly. Thereafter again for eight dates of hearing, no RW was present.

12. Then on 2.6.1999, one RW was present and examined. Thereafter, for 25 dates of hearing, no RW was present.

13. On 17.7.2000, one RW was examined in chief. However, his cross-examination was deferred as the witness had not brought the relevant record. Thereafter, on one date the case was adjourned on account of strike by the lawyers. Once again no RW was present and on one date though RW was present but due to non-availability of the counsel, he could not be examined. Thereafter, twice no RW was present.

14. However, on 11.10.2000, deferred cross-examination of RW- Shiv Kumar was concluded. Thereafter again on three dates of hearing, no RW was present. Even cost was imposed on the tenants. On 6.12.2000, the court passed the following order:

"Previous costs paid and accepted. PW Bhupinder Kumar is present and has suffered a statement that summoned record is not traceable and has given assurance that he produce the summoned record on the next date. As per statement case adjourned to 9.12.2000 for concluding defendant's evidence, on request 13.12.2000."

15. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that though the case Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [5] was fixed for tenants' evidence, but it was shown as PW-Bhupinder Kumar was present.

16. On 13.12.2000, the learned Rent Controller noticed that one RW examined. Vide separate statement of counsel for the tenants, the evidence was closed except statement of the defendant and the documents for which the case was adjourned to 19.12.2000.

17. On 19.12.2000, the court recorded that one RW- Raj Kumari was present but could not be examined. The order is in contradiction to the one passed on 13.12.2000 permitting only the statement of the defendant. The respondents in the eviction petition are-- firm M/s S. K. Engineering Works through Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar and Shiv Kumar. Raj Kumari is not one of the respondents. On the next date of hearing, it is noticed that one DW is present but could not be examined as the Bar was on strike.

18. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 8.1.2001, the learned Rent Controller closed the evidence of the tenants by order of the court and the case was fixed for 10.1.2001 for rebuttal evidence and in the alternative for arguments. The text of the order passed on 8.1.2001 is extracted below:

"No R.W. is present. In the present case, issues were framed on 2.9.1996 and the petitioner closed his evidence on 11.8.1998 and thereafter the respondent has availed more than 45 effective opportunities excluding more than 15 opportunities when the Local Bar was on strike or file was taken up on the subsequent day due to some holidays or including last opportunities granted on 13.9.99, 24.9.99, 4.10.99, 22.10.99, 5.11.99, 16.11.99, 22.11.99 and thereafter four effective opportunities were given and again last opportunity on 21.1.2000, 31.1.2000, 11.2.2000, 23.2.2000, 1.3.2000, 16.3.2000, 4.4.2000, 24.4.2000, 12.5.2000,

19.5.2000, 30.5.2000 and on 14.6.2000, it was specifically ordered that no further adjournment will be given and even then the respondent has availed 10 opportunities. The respondent was burdened with costs on 3.10.2000, 4.12.2000 and on 13.12.2000 counsel for the respondent-Shri Karam Chand Advocate has suffered statement that he will examine Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [6] the respondent only and closed his documentary evidence and even then the respondent has taken two more opportunities but has not concluded his evidence. As from the discussion above, it is clear that the respondent has tried to linger on matter at one pretext or the other. Even today, no evidence of the respondent has been produced. Even counsel for the respondent has not come present, only clerk has informed that the counsel for the respondent is busy in some other Court and the present petition is history-sheeted, as such, finding no justification for granting further time, evidence of the respondent is closed by order of the court.

For rebuttal evidence to come up on 10.1.2001 and in the alternative for arguments."

19. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 10.1.2001, the order shows that an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Section 151 CPC was filed. It is not evident as to who was the applicant. However, the subsequent order shows that the application was allowed on 19.2.2001 and opportunity was granted for recording of statement of Raj Kumari-RW.

20. On 23.2.2001, one DW was present and examined. On the statement of counsel for the tenants, the evidence was closed except filing of some documents. The case was adjourned for documentary evidence, if any, and in the alternative for arguments. Thereafter on five dates of hearing, no documents were filed by the tenants.

21. On 4.4.2001, some application was filed by the tenants and the case was fixed for filing reply thereof. As to what for that application was, is not evident from that order. The matter remained pending for its consideration till 15.6.2001 when the court noticed that the case is adjourned to 17.7.2001 for consideration on the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC.

22. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 17.7.2001, the court noticed that an application for leading additional evidence has been filed by the petitioner and the case was adjourned for reply thereto.

23. On 17.8.2001, application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence to produce certified copy of the judgment in Civil Suit Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [7] No. 452 of 20.11.1995 decided on 24.5.2001 was allowed and its certified copy was taken on record. The last paragraph of the order dated 17.8.2001 shows that application dated 4.4.2001, as was noticed in the interim order passed on that date, was allowed and a photo copy of the application dated 11.3.1996 was allowed to be placed on record. As to what that application was is not evident from the order. The case was fixed for filing of documents, for the first time on 19.12.2000. Thereafter, when the application filed by the tenants under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC was allowed on 19.2.2001, fresh opportunity was granted to the tenants to produce documents on 23.2.2001 and again the same process started on account of the fact that during interregnum some applications were being filed by the parties as a result of which the court lost track of the proceedings in the main case.

24. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for 18 dates of hearing till 10.12.2001 for filing of documents. The contradiction in the orders passed on 10.12.2001, 18.12.2001 and 22.12.2001 is evident from a perusal thereof, which are extracted below:

" Order dated 10.12.2001 Documents not filed. Adjournment is requested which is granted. Case adjourned to 18.12.2001 for filing documents, if any and in the alternative for arguments. Order dated 18.12.2001 No evidence in rebuttal is present. Adjournment is requested which is granted. Now for the rebuttal evidence, if any, or arguments, to come up on 22.12.01.

Order dated 22.12.2001 Counsel for the parties are stated to be away to Gurdaspur and in the interest of justice for filing documents case to come up on 4.1.02 and in the alternative for argument."

25. A perusal of the aforesaid orders shows that on 10.12.2001, the case was fixed for filing of documents, if any, and in the alternative for arguments. On the next date, i.e., 18.12.2001, the court noticed that no evidence in rebuttal is present. The case was adjourned for rebuttal Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [8] evidence, if any, or arguments. On the next date again, the case was adjourned for filing of documents. Thereafter, for 8 dates of hearing till 1.3.2002, no documents were filed.

26. On 7.3.2002, the learned court below passed the following order:

"It has come to my notice that an application dated 4.4.2001 filed by the respondents and its reply was filed on 11.4.01. The said application is yet to be decided. Since Shri B. M. Lal, Adv. Counsel for the respondents is stated to be away to Gurdaspur. As such, for consideration on application above, to come up on 15.3.02."

27. The aforesaid order passed apparently runs contrary to the order passed on 17.8.2001 vide which the application stood disposed of already.

28. On 22.3.2002, application dated 4.4.2001 was disposed of. It is further noticed that a reference had been sent to learned District Judge, Gurdaspur regarding loss of documents.

29. On 15.5.2002, it is noticed that an order had been received from learned District Judge intimating that enquiry is being conducted for loss of documents. Till 14.5.2008, the learned Rent Controller continued adjourning the proceedings in the case for awaiting the report of the learned District Judge on the enquiry initiated for loss of documents.

30. On 11.8.2008, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:

"This case pertains to the year 1995. An application was filed by the respondent that Raj Kumar had moved an application during the pendency of the present application showing their willing to deposit the rent. The said application is not traceable and case is fixed for consideration. I have seen the file. As per the pronouncement of the Apex Court in case Rajesh Wadhawa v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, rent can be assessed at two stage. One at the preliminary stage of the case and second at the last stage of the case. Case regarding deposit of rent can be considered at the appropriate Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [9] stage. Rent was assessed as per pronouncement of judgment of the Apex Court. Law is fully applicable. Amount be considered at the final stage. Case is fixed for evidence of the respondent. To come up on 27.8.2008 for evidence of the respondent at own responsibility. No process shall be issued for summoning the witness."

31. In the aforesaid order, it has been noticed that some application was filed by Raj Kumar showing willingness to deposit the rent. However, the same was not traceable in file. Even though for the last 7 years, the case was being adjourned to await the report of enquiry, but all of a sudden it was fixed for evidence of the tenants, meaning thereby the report of the enquiry was not relevant for which the case was being adjourned earlier. This is despite the fact that evidence of the landlord had already been closed vide order dated 11.8.1998 and the case was being adjourned for filing of documents. On three dates of hearing subsequent to 11.8.2008, the case was shown to be fixed for tenants' evidence. On 10.9.2008, the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence. It continued to be so for next four dates of hearing till 30.9.2008. On 10.10.2008, an application for amendent of written statement was filed. The application remained pending till 11.2.2009 when the learned Rent Controller, while referring to the application filed by the tenants for amendment of the written statement and noticing that when the case was taken up for the purpose of decision thereof, it was opined that certain more issues are required to be framed in order to decide the dispute. The parties, in fact, had led sufficient evidence in respect of their pleadings but for effective adjudication, the issues were re-framed. The text of the order is as under:

"This is a history sheeted case and when the case was taken up for the purpose of deciding the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC with the assistance of Advocates of the parties I have gone through the issues, which are as under:

1. Whether respondents are liable to be ejected on the ground mentioned in the application ?OPA

2. Relief.

I am of the opinion that specific issues have to be Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [10] framed in order to decide the lis between the parties. Parties have already led sufficient evidence in respect of their pleadings but for effective adjudication, the following issues are re-framed as under:

1. Whether petitioner is entitled to seek order of ejectment of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the demised premises on the ground that respondent is neither paid nor deposit the rent since 1.8.1981 ? OPA.

2. Whether the respondents have materially impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises as roof of the workshop marked as AEIH had fallen down and they had started raising construction of the said portion without consent and permission of the landlord and the respondents are liable to be ejected on this ground ? OPA

3. Whether respondents have changed the original nature and construction of the demised premises, if so to what effect ?OPA

4. Whether tenanted premises have become un-safe and unfit for human use and occupation and respondents are liable to be ejected from the tenanted premises ? OPA

5. Whether respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have sublet the tenanted premises in favour of respondent No. 3 without consent of the petitioner and therefore liable to be ejected ? OPA

6. Whether the petition was filed earlier by the petitioner in which the ejectment order was passed on 13.12.1983 on the ground other than in the present petition and appeal of which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, if so to what effect ?

7. Whether the petition is barred in view of the previous litigation between the parties regarding the same property, if so to what effect ? OPR

8. Relief.

Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [11]

Now for evidence of the applicant, if any, to come up on 20.2.2009."

32 A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that even though in the beginning, it is noticed that the parties have already led sufficient evidence in respect of their pleadings, but for effective adjudication of the lis, the issues were required to be re-framed which was done. However, still in the last line, it was noted that the case is fixed for evidence of the landlords.

On the next date of hearing, i.e., 20.2.2009, counsel for the landlords closed his evidence and the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments. On the next date of hearing, the tenants filed application for leading secondary evidence. The application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 20.7.2010, which is impugned in the present petition. It may be noticed that the case was adjourned 48 times for the purpose of consideration of the aforesaid application.

33. The manner in which the case was being dealt with by the learned Rent Controller, as has been noticed above, shows that eviction petition was filed by the landlords on 8.12.1995. After appearance of the tenants, issues were framed. The landlords closed their evidence on 11.8.1998 and case was fixed for evidence of the tenants.

34. On 8.1.2001, the evidence of the tenants was closed by order of the court. Till then, the tenants had availed of 52 opportunities for the purpose.

35. On 10.1.2001, an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC was filed, which was decided on 19.2.2001. Thereafter, the case remained pending for documentary evidence and arguments till 4.4.2001, on which date, some application was filed by the tenants. The matter remained pending for consideration till 15.6.2001. On 17.7.2001, an application for adducing additional evidence was filed by the landlords, which was allowed on 17.8.2001. The case was adjourned 28 times for filing of documents and arguments. When the case was fixed for that purpose, the court noticed that application dated 4.4.2001 filed by the tenants was stated to be pending and the case was adjourned for consideration thereof, whereas the said application already stood decided on 17.8.2001.

Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [12]

36. On 22.3.2002, a reference was sent to the learned District Judge regarding loss of documents. The matter remained pending for seven years for awaiting the report of District Judge. On 10.10.2008, application for amendment of the written statement was filed, which remained pending till 11.2.2009, on which date issues were re-framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the landlords. Their evidence was closed on 20.2.2009. On the next date of hearing, the tenants filed application for leading secondary evidence, which remained pending till 20.7.2010 and during the interregnum, 44 dates of hearing were fixed.

Regarding applications filed by the landlord

37. Application for additional evidence filed by the landlord on 17.7.2001 was decided on 17.8.2001 and the landlord was permitted to produce certified copies of the judgment and decree in Civil Case No. 452 of 20.11.1995 regarding permanent injunction between the parties. The landlord closed his evidence after tendering certified copies of the aforesaid judgment and decree on the same day.

Applications filed by the tenants

38. Application dated 11.3.1996 is stated to have been filed for tendering rent which was claimed to have been lost. A perusal of the order sheet shows that on 8.12.1995, notice was issued to the tenants for 19.2.1996. There is no zimni order on the file after 19.2.1996 as the next order available is dated 23.4.1996. It cannot be ascertain as to whether this application was filed or not.

39. Immediately after the evidence of the tenants was closed and the case was fixed for arguments for 10.1.2001, application was filed by the tenants under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC for additional evidence, which was allowed on 19.2.2001.

40. On the next date of hearing, one DW was examined. The evidence of the tenants was closed except filing of certain documents. Upto 4.4.2001, no documents were filed. Another application was filed for taking note of the fact that earlier the tenants had filed application dated 11.3.1996 for permission to tender rent, but the same was not available on the file. The said application was disposed of on 17.8.2001 and photo copy Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [13] of the application dated 11.3.1996 was allowed to be placed on record.

At that stage, though the case should have been adjourned for arguments but it was adjourned for filing of documents and remained pending as such till 7.3.2002, when the court noticed that application dated 4.4.2001 was still pending. The case was adjourned for its consideration and the same was disposed of again on 22.3.2002 by sending a reference to the learned District & Sessions Judge regarding loss of documents.

41. Application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the tenants on 10.10.2008, which was decided on 11.2.2009. While noticing that sufficient evidence led by the parties is already on record, for effective adjudication, the issues were re-framed.

42. On 2.3.2009, application for secondary evidence was filed by the tenants which was decided on 20.7.2010. The order is impugned in the present petition.

43. On 7.4.2010, the court below noticed that some application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act had been filed, but the same is not available on record. It was filed during the pendency of earlier application for permission to lead secondary evidence.

44. Immediately after the decision of application filed on 2.3.2009 for permission to lead secondary evidence, on 26.7.2010, the tenants filed application for recording statement of the respondents, which is still pending.

45. Though the order impugned in the petition before this court is dated 20.7.2010, the petition was filed in this court on 23.10.2010 by ordinary process. The object of the tenants is apparently to delay the proceedings. After it was listed in the court for the first time on 20.4.2011, adjournment was sought. The arguments were heard for the first time only on 20.5.2011.

46. As far as the merits of the controversy is concerned, the claim of the petitioners is that after the issues were re-framed and landlords were granted permission to lead evidence, the tenants certainly had a right to lead evidence in support of the new issues. The contention is totally misconceived. It is not disputed that the stand of petitioner-Shiv Kumar before the court below from the very beginning was that he being a partner Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [14] in the firm had a right to continue in possession of the premises in dispute. Whatever evidence the tenants wanted to lead was led or could have been led at the initial stage, for which the case was adjourned number of times. While considering the application filed by the tenants for amendment of the written statement, the court below found that in fact in order to effectively adjudicate the lis between the parties, the issues are required to be re-framed as the parties had already led sufficient evidence on record. It was only in the light thereof that the issues were re-framed. Merely because in the end, due to inadvertence or casualness, it was mentioned that the case to come up for evidence of the landlords will not take the case of the tenants any further. The document, which is sought to be proved by way of leading secondary evidence is some partnership deed dated 1.4.1974. Under these circumstances, there is no question of permitting either of the parties even to lead evidence what to talk of secondary evidence on behalf of the tenants, as it was not the stage therefor.

47. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed. The learned court below is directed to conclude the trial positively before 11.6.2012. All applications be also disposed of before that date.

48. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and others v. Nirmala Devi and others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 directed the trial courts to take following steps while dealing with the civil trials:

"A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial Judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.

B. The court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Code. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at truth of the matter and doing substantial justice.

Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [15]

C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. D. The courts must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits. E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex-parte and interim injunctions of stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders should be passed.

F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court.

G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice. H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well settled principles of law and justice. I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided.

J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [16] pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said time table as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed."

All the learned courts below are required to take note of the aforesaid enunciation of law to check delay in disposal of cases.

49. It is experienced that applications filed in the proceedings before the court below sometimes remain pending on account of inadvertence or sometimes not pressed by the counsels with a view to take a plea before the appellate court that on account of non-disposal of the application while deciding the main case, the matter is required to be re- considered/remanded back. As is evident from the facts in the present case, one application dated 4.4.2001 was apparently decided twice. Many a times, the applications remain pending for years together especially when any unscrupulous litigant files application after application so that track of earlier application or the proceedings of the main case is lost and the case remains pending. To regulate the procedure pertaining to filing and disposal of the application, it is directed as under:

(1) Each and every application filed in a case shall be numbered in seriatim in ascending order, which shall be independent in each case. All the applications shall be tagged and kept in a separate file.

(2) The zimni order on the date when any application is filed shall briefly mention the purpose for which the application has been filed and by whom.

(3) An index shall be put on the file mentioning the number of application serial-wise; the name of the applicant;

date of filing; purpose of the application and the date of its disposal.

(4) A note be put up on each application when disposed of about the date of its disposal.

Civil Revision No. 7865 of 2010 [17]

50. Considering the manner in which the case was conducted and the directions issued by this court in paragraph No. 49 of the judgment, it is directed that a copy of the order be circulated to all the courts concerned in the States of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge March 21, 2012 mk

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court