Punjab-Haryana High Court
S. Mewa Singh Gill vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)120PLR679
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Order dated 12th of March, 1997, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, has been kapugned in this revision petition.
2. Petitioner had filed a suit for declaration praying that the bill raised by the defendant-respondents herein in relation to the telephone connections when he was a member of the Parliament was illegal, against the rules and was liable to be set aside and his telephone ought to be restored. The suit was contested by the defendants. While opposing this claim, the defendants filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in accordance with the rules. This application was dismissed vide orders dated 9.3.1995 and the case was fixed for 26.4.1995 for filing of the written statement. As written statement was not filed costs of Rs. 100/- was imposed on 29.2.1996 and the case was adjourned to 22.4.1996. It is alleged that in spite of demand costs were not paid and no written statement was filed. Further costs of Rs. 200/- was imposed and last opportunity was granted to the defendants in the suit vide order dated 13.8.1996. Further, costs of Rs. 100/- was imposed on 3.9.1996. As the costs were not paid, the petitioner filed an application under Section 35-B of Code of Civil Procedure praying that the defence of the respondents be struck off for non-payment of costs. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court, however, with the following observations :-
"Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case I hereby direct the defendant to deposit the total cost of Rs. 400/- on the next date of hearing i.e. 9.4.1997 failing which their defence will be deemed to be struck off."
3. It is this order which has been impugned in the present revision. It appears from the record and the tenor of the order that the petitioner did not raise a specific demand of costs before the Court during the pendency of this suit. If this was so, the petitioner would have got the same recorded in the Zimni order sheet of the Court file. It is an admitted case that none of the orders notices the 'pressed' demands of costs raised by the petitioner.
4. There is no doubt that there has been definite negligence on the part of the defendant-respondents in not filing the written statement and payment of costs but it may not be in the interest of justice to struck off the defence of the defendants for some faults committed by the officials of the department. The rule or procedure should be adhered to but to achieve the ends of justice and not to frustrate the. same.
5. The impugned order is a mere procedural and does not determine substantive rights of the parties to the lis. A mere procedural order to what extent would be revisable by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is a question of considerable emphasis. It is settled principle of law that scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a very limited one. The order must suffer from a jurisdictional error or such palpable error which is apparent on the face of the record and has caused prejudice to the rights of the parties. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Bhojraj Kunwarji Oil Mill and Ginning Factory and Anr. v. Yograjsinha Shankersinha Parihar and Ors., A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1894, wherein it was observed as under :-
"Therefore, we are of the opinion that both the learned Assistant Judge and the High Court were not justified in interfering with the order of the trial Court, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction on the only ground that a different view on facts elicited was possible. This approach hardly permits interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction".
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Anand Parkash V. Bharat Bhushan Rai, (1981) 83 P.L.R. 555 (F.B.) and a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Sagar and Ors. v. Phool Chand, (1983) 85 P.L.R. 797, to argue that the party obliged to pay costs under the orders of the Court should pay costs and the court should disallow prosecution of the suit in default thereof.
7. There could hardly be much dispute to the principles of law enunciated in these judgments. The question is with regard to application of these principles to the facts and circumstances of a given case. Court must weigh equities and apply the settled principles to the facts of each case and further the cause of justice. The case of the department as it appears is that the bills to the extent of Rs. 39,166/- in relation to the telephone were not paid and, therefore, the demand was raised and one of the telephones being 51601 installed at the premises of the plaintiff was disconnected. The merits of this claim are yet to be gone into.
8. The proceedings in this case were stayed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Sodhi vide his lordship's order dated 30th April, 1997 and the said stay is in force till today. Certainly the conduct of the respondents herein needs to be deprecated but no fruitful purpose would be served by striking out the defence at this stage because the impugned order itself was conditional one and had not vested either party with any adverse consequence. None of the counsel appearing before this Court could inform the Court whether on 9.4.1997 the written statement was filed and costs paid or not. Of Course, the counsel of the department took the stand that costs were offered prior thereto even but they were refused by the counsel for the petitioner. I do not consider it necessary to go into this controversy in this revision. I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 12.3.1997 does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction which in any case has a very limited scope.
9. For the reasons aforestated this petition is dismissed but it is made clear that the petitioner herein shall be entitled to additional costs of Rs. 1,000/-, In other words, the petitioner would be entitled to receive costs of Rs. 1,400/- and if any costs have been paid earlier for not filing the written statement they shall be deducted from this amount. The interim order dated 30th of April, 1997, is hereby vacated. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 20.8.1998 on which date the written statement shall be positively filed if not already filed and the costs shall also be paid as observed above. In the event of default as held by the learned trial Court the defence of the defendants in the suit shall stand struck off.
10. This case is a glaring example of utter disregard to the expected standards of functioning by the officers/officials of the concerned department. The costs which have been imposed in this petition and by the learned trial Court are obviously a result of negligence and irresponsible attitude of some officer/officials in the hierarchy. Consequently, it is directed that General Manager, Telephones, Ludhiana, shall conduct an enquiry into this matter and costs of Rs. 1,400/- paid by the department to the plaintiff shall be recovered from the salary of the erring officer/official in accordance with rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Compliance report shall be submitted to the trial Court immediately thereafter. The trial Court shall ensure compliance of this order.
11. Petition dismissed with the above observations.