Punjab-Haryana High Court
Makhan Singh vs Kashmir Singh And Ors. on 25 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)126PLR647
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 27th October, 1999, vide which the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nawanshahar, declined to grant further opportunity for filling the written statement and directed the defence of the defendant shall stand struck off and thus adjourned the case for recording the evidence of the plaintiff.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court has not exercised the discretion vested in it in consonance with the settled principle of law. The Court ought to have granted another opportunity for filing of the written statement. Thus, the order suffers from an error of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the record.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner has failed to do the act of filing the written statement or even payment of costs within the time provided by the Court that too after by granting repeated opportunities, as such, the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or otherwise.
4. Kashmir Singh, plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant Mohan Singh and others praying that the defendants in the suit be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the property shown in red colour in the map annexed to the plaint and for dispossessing them forcibly from the property subject matter of the suit. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 6th February, 1999. The defendant (petitioner herein)was granted 8 opportunities to file the written statement and vide order dated 22nd July, 1999, the learned Court had ordered that the written statement had not been filed despite opportunities and granted further time to the petitioner to file written statement by 30th August, 1999. On 30th August, 1999, no written statement was filed. Thus, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 100/- for grant of further time to file written statement on 29.9.1999. Still the petitioner failed to file written statement. As the written statement was not filed again costs of Rs. 100/- was imposed and the petitioner was directed to file the written statement on 27th October, 1999. On 27th October, 1999. neither costs were paid nor written statement was filed. Thus, compelling the Court to pass the impugned order dated 27th October, 1999. Which reads as under:-
"Present: Counsel for the parties.
No written statement has been filed on behalf of defendants, while getting eight opportunities. Costs also not paid. Therefore, the defence of the defendants is strike of. Adjourned to 19.5.2000 for evidence of plaintiff."
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the parties have to be appreciated, in view of the above undisputed facts or record. Even copy of the zimni orders were produced during the course of hearing by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Normally, it is the conduct of the parties to the proceedings themselves that makes the maxim justice delayed is justice denied true in the proceedings pending before the Court. The conduct of the petitioner is the present case is solely and directly responsible for causing avoidable delay in the conclusion of the proceedings of the suit before the Court. Such party must be held responsible and exposed to the legal consequences, which must flow as a result of repeated defaults on the part of the parties concerned. The law of procedure is intended to achieve the ends of justice, but the framers of the Code have also given due protection to the party against whom the other attempts to frustrate the very rule of law and object of the Code by adopting delaying tactics or abusing the prescribed process of law.
7. At this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Joginder Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Manjit Kaur, Civil Revision No. 5885 of 1998 decided on 14.1.1999 (2000-3)126 P.L.R. 124, where Court held as under:-
"Certainly, it is not possible for the Court to provide the panacea to all problems arising at different stages of the suit. The Code of Civil Procedure is a comprehensive code and the different stages of a suit are controlled and regulated by various checks and limitations provided in the Code. The pious wish of the legislation for expeditious disposal of the suit runs like a golden thread in the various provisions of the Code. The inherent powers vested in the Court under section 151 of the C.P.C. are of very wide magnitude, but are certainly controlled by self restraints and restrict exercise of such powers depending merit of each cash. The Court is under an implied obligation to balance the equities between the parties to a suit to achieve the ends of justice, which are the basic paramount object of the Code. The equities would demand that power under the provisions of the Code or the inherent powers should be exercised by the Court to correct imbalance or inequities resulting from unnecessary adjournments, between the parties. As a result of fault of one party to the suit, the other is certainly put to inconvenience or unnecessary harassment. Delay in conclusion of proceedings again is a factor of vital importance, as such, uncontrolled opportunity to a party to conclude its evidence in any number of opportunities would certainly prejudice the interest of the other party to the suit, who is exposed to prolong litigation. Thus, there has to be a stage when the Court must decline to grant further opportunity to the defaulting party to conclude its evidence.
8. It can neither be said in law nor on facts of any case, that the defendant to a suit has a formidable or vested legal right to ask for innumerable adjournments for doing an act directed by the Court to be done within specified time. Moreso, an act like filing the written statement to a case. No justification whatsoever have been recorded in the orders of the Courts even for a single adjournment much less for 8 adjournments and 9th with costs.
9. It is a matter of regret that the defendant did not take the order of the learned trial Court with any seriousness at any point of time. It appears that the party had taken for granted that suit can be delayed by them for a number of years as order of no serious consequences for default of the party would be passed.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the case of Mohinder Singh v. Rameshwar Kumar Singla and Ors. (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 696, where the Court held as under:-
"On that date it was found that no witness was summoned by the defendant. The case was, therefore, adjourned to 18.5.1987 on payment of Rs. 30/as cost. On the adjourned date, the defendant did not turn up nor had summoned any witness for that date. Even the costs of adjournment imposed on the previous date had not been paid and therefore, he had rightly been debarred from prosecuting the case under Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under these circumstances, which are apparent on the face of the record, the appellant cannot be heard to say that sufficient opportunity had not been afforded to him to adduce his evidence."
11. Undoubtedly, the provisions of sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure vest wide power in the Court to enlarge time granted for compliance with the directions or to complete the act so directed. But this power is obviously subject to existence of sufficient cause, reasonable ground and limitation imposed by the settled cannons of law governing exercise of such powers. These provisions are intended to achieve the ends of justice and not to frustrate the very basic concept, which is the soul of judicial administration "expeditious disposal of judicial proceedings " There appears to be no justification on record why the defendant did not file the written statement for 8 hearings despite imposition of costs and further aggravated his attitude of defiance even by not paying the costs. The Legislative intent not to grant indefinite adjournments to a party to file the written statement is inbuilt in the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression " the Court shall" will have to be constructed as in the discretion of the Court and not an absolute mandate upon the Court to pronounce the judgment against the defendant, who has failed to the file the written statement within the time granted by the Court.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Prabhakar Rao and Ors. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. A.I.R. 1986, S.C. 210 and a Division, Bench of this Court in the case of Shrimati Massan Devi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 253 has enunciated the view that such like provisions of the ' code do not impose a mandatory duty upon the Court and it would pass any order as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including striking off the defence. The inherent powers of the Court to pass such orders to achieve the ends of justice would always come to the aid of the Court in addition, to the specific provisions of the Code.
13. For the reasons aforestated, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Consequently, revision petition is dismissed without order as to costs.