Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sant Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2012
C.R. No.5777 of 2009 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: 18.12.2012
1) C.R. No.5777 of 2009 (O&M)
Sant Ram and others
...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
2) C.R. No.5778 of 2009 (O&M)
Sant Ram and others
...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Dr. Deepak Jindal, D.A.G., Haryana.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Ajay Tewari, J.(Oral)
These are two petitions. By civil revision bearing C.R. No.5777 of 2009 the petitioners have challenged two orders, one dated 07.01.2008 closing their evidence and the second dated 05.06.2008 dismissing the application for additional evidence. C.R. No.5777 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
As per the record, the petitioners had moved a petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking apportionment arising out of land acquisition proceedings. The said petition was filed in the year 2001 almost five years after the award. On 07.01.2008, the Court noticed that no PW was present nor any steps had been taken for summoning and producing the witnesses and an adjournment had been sought. The Court further found that since it was a last opportunity case no further time could be granted for leading evidence and consequently closed the evidence. It would be noticed from the order that the opposite party-objectors were duly present in Court alongwith their counsel. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for additional evidence stating that at the time when the evidence was closed twenty two documents were inadvertently not produced. The Court noticed that the petitioners permitted the order closing the evidence to become final; there was no issue of rebuttal; and the case was fixed for final arguments when the said application was moved and consequently rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioners had not led their evidence despite several opportunities having been granted.
The second petition bearing C.R. No.5778 of 2009 has been filed against the order dated 17.07.2008 dismissing the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they have not led any evidence in support thereof.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as far back as on 14.02.2006 the petitioners had got prepared their evidence to be tendered by way of examination-in-chief and this shows that the petitioners were not negligent. In my opinion, this fact would suggest otherwise. It C.R. No.5777 of 2009 (O&M) -3- would show that the petitioners had taken the Court proceedings very casually. In the first place, they had moved the petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act after five years. Thereafter, for seven years they had not led any evidence. More importantly, for a period of almost two years they had never cared to appear in Court even to tender their affidavits. In the circumstances, lack of due diligence is clearly shown on the part of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that one of the reasons which had weighed with the Court for rejecting the application is clearly misconceived viz., omission of Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. In the considered opinion of this Court, even if the trial Court had wrongly relied upon the omission of Order 18 Rule 17-A yet the Court had also, as mentioned above, noticed the lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioners.
The Hon'ble Supreme in the matter of M/s Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and others in para Nos.15 and 16 has held as follows:-
"15. Second, and equally important, the High Court upset the concurrent judgment and decree of the two courts on misplaced sympathy and non - existent justification. The High Court observed that the stakes in the suit being very high, the plaintiff should not be non- suited on the basis of no evidence. But, who is to be blamed for this lapse? It is the plaintiff alone. As a matter of fact, the trial court had given more than sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to C.R. No.5777 of 2009 (O&M) -4- produce evidence in support of its case. As noticed above, after the issues were framed on July 19, 2006, on three occasions, the trial court fixed the matter for the plaintiff's evidence but on none of these dates any evidence was let in by it.
What should the court do in such
circumstances? Is the court obliged to give
adjournment after adjournment merely because the stakes are high in the dispute? Should the court be a silent spectator and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward? It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek - and the courts grant - adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the judges are little pro-active and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. It is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. The case in hand is a case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit.C.R. No.5777 of 2009 (O&M) -5-
16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. It is true that cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory and in a suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC should be maintained. When we say `justifiable cause' what we mean to say is, a cause which is not only `sufficient cause' as contemplated in sub-rule (1) of Order XVII CPC but a cause which makes the request for adjournment by a party during the hearing of the suit beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of a compelling necessity like sudden illness of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer; death in the family of any one of them; natural calamity like floods, earthquake, etc. in the area where any of these persons reside; an accident involving the litigant or the witness or the lawyer on way to the court and such like cause. The list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the absence of the lawyer or his non-availability because of professional work in other court or elsewhere or on the ground of strike call or the change of a lawyer or the continuous illness of the lawyer (the party whom he represents must then make alternative arrangement well in advance) or similar grounds will not justify C.R. No.5777 of 2009 (O&M) -6- more than three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit. The past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important circumstance which the courts must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment is made. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit - whether plaintiff or defendant - must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don't, they do so at their own peril. Insofar as present case is concerned, if the stakes were high, the plaintiff ought to have been more serious and vigilant in prosecuting the suit and producing its evidence. If despite three opportunities, no evidence was let in by the plaintiff, in our view, it deserved no sympathy in second appeal in exercise of power under Section 100 CPC. We find no justification at all for the High Court in upsetting the concurrent judgment of the courts below. The High Court was clearly in error in giving the plaintiff an opportunity to produce evidence when no justification for that course existed."
In the circumstances, there is no justification for allowing the petitioners for further opportunities to lead their evidence. Once the petitioners are held disentitled to lead any evidence then the subsequent order whereby the claim was dismissed also cannot be faulted. C.R. No.5777 of 2009 (O&M) -7-
Resultantly, the petitions are dismissed.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
December 18, 2012 JUDGE
ashish