Jharkhand High Court
Nandlal Rana & Ors vs Rita Devi & Ors on 19 May, 2012
Author: P.P. Bhatt
Bench: P.P. Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (C) No. 104 of 2012
...
Nandlal Rana & Others ... ... Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
Rita Devi & Others ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT.
...
For the Petitioners : - Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondents : - M/s. Vikas Kishore and Shiv Prasad, Advoctes.
...
07/19.05.2012Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents.
2. Perused the papers and the supporting documents as well as the impugned order passed by the court below.
3. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07th December, 2011 passed by the Sub-Judge-6th, Giridih in T.S. No. 9 of 1990, whereby the petition filed on behalf of the defendants to recall order dated 13.10.2011 by which evidence of defendants has been closed and to recall plaintiffs' witnesses for cross-examination have been rejected without assigning any reason.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the impugned order submitted that the learned Judge has not assigned any reason whatsoever while rejecting the application filed by the defendants. The learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners pointed out from Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 that the plaintiffs have examined most of the witnesses in the year 2010-11 and thereafter, the defendants were directed to produce evidence, fixing the date, 13.10.2011 and on the same day, the evidence of the defendants was closed and the case was fixed for arguments.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents by referring to the order-sheet of the Title Suit No. 9 of 1990 pointed out that sufficient opportunity has been provided and the suit has been prolonged on account of the defendants and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly and properly rejected the application.
6. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the papers as well as the impugned order passed by the court below, it transpires that the Title Suit is of the year 1990 and the original defendant no. 1 has died in the year 1999 and thereafter, the legal heirs of the defendant no. 1 were brought on record. It appears that the defendants have not filed any written statement well within time. Even after death of the original defendant no. 1, the legal heirs have not submitted any written statement and now at this belated stage, the defendants have submitted such an application with a request to give them an opportunity to have cross-examined all the plaintiff's witnesses. On perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that sufficient opportunity have been provided to the plaintiffs as well as defendants by taking a lenient view by the court below to adduce their evidence. The suit filed, was in respect of the title and therefore, with a view to give fair chance to the litigating parties, the court beow has adjourned the matter from time to time in the interest of justice but it appears that the defendants were not vigilant and on account of not taking requisite steps in time, the matter is delayed. The defendants could not submit their written statement in time and now the plaintiff's evidence is over and the defendants have not been given a chance to adduce the evidence, which is clear from the order-sheet, because the defendants were given only one day to adduce the evidence and on the same date, the said stage was ordered to be closed.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the litigation, this Court is of the view that the defendants are required to be given an opportunity to have cross-examined all the plaintiff's witnesses. Therefore, the order passed by the court below, dated 07.12.2011 is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be referred to the court below for giving an opportunity to the defendants for the purpose of cross-examination of all the plaintiff's witnesses those who are alive but while passing such order, it is necessary to give time frame, so that further delay can be avoided and therefore, the defendants shall undertake this exercise of cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. This opportunity is required to be given to the defendants in the interest of justice without entering into any technicality with a view to do substantial justice and also with a view to give litigating parties a fair opportunity in the litigation.
8. Accordingly, the order passed by the court below, dated 07.12.2011 is ordered to be set aside to the extent of giving an opportunity to examine the plaintiff's witnesses only. The court below is directed to give an opportunity to the defendants to have cross- examined all the plaintiff's witnesses within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. It is further clarified that under no circumstances, further time will be provided or extension will be granted. Thereafter the Court should make possible endeavours to complete the proceedings on completion of cross-examination within a period of three months. It is clarified that the defendants are given opportunity for the limited purpose of having cross-examination of all the plaintiff's witnesses, those who are alive and the defendants will not be given any chance to re-open their case.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(P.P. Bhatt, J.) APK