Delhi District Court
AscjJsccGj(Central) vs Sh.Kuldip Singh on 28 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH GAUTAM MANAN,
ASCJJSCCGJ(CENTRAL), NEW DELHI.
RCA .219/07
Sh.Badulla Ansari
s/o Sh. Mohd.Hussain Ansari,
r/o A 96, Wazirpur Indl.area,
Delhi. ................Appellant
Versus
Sh.Kuldip singh
s/o Sh Pritam Singh
r/o A 96, Wazirpur Indl.Area
Delhi. ................ Respondents
Date of Institution of Appeal : 02.12.06
Date of Reserving Judgement : 28.03.11
Date of Judgement : 28.03.11
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose of an appeal filed on behalf of appellant against orders dated 24.11.06 passed by Ld.Trial Court wherein the suit of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to lead evidence in the suit. 1 RCA 219/06
2. The appellant has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the ld.Trial Court while closing the evidence of the appellant has acted harshly on the appellant and furthermore it has been argued that only one opportunity was granted to appellant to lead evidence on which the appellant was not able to conduct evidence due to lawyer's strike. It has been argued that the orders passed by ld. Trial Court has caused grievous injustice to the appellant. It has been prayed that orders be set aside and directions be issued so that the suit of the appellant is tried and decided on merits.
3. The respondent in the present case has not contested the appeal despite his service through publication.
4. I have heard ld. Counsel for appellant and perused the Trial Court record.
5. ld.Trial Court on 25.11.05 framed the issues and posted the matter for evidence of appellant on 25.1.06 but on the said date 2 RCA 219/06 the lawyers were stated to be on strike and as such the appellant could not lead his evidence. The Ld.Trial Court on the same very date closed the evidence of the appellant and lateron even the application of the appellant filed u/s 151 CPC for recalling the orders dated 25.1.06 were dismissed.
6. The law of land is well settled that a party could not be put to injustice due to act of his lawyer and in the facts of the case when the appellant was only given one opportunity to lead evidence which he could not avail due to strike of lawyers the order of closing of evidence no doubt caused injustice to the case of appellant.
7. Ld.Trial Court in facts of the case should have allowed application of appellant under the provisions of 151 CPC. By not doing so the appellant has not been able to get his case decided on merits and hence the orders passed by ld.Trial Court dated 24.11.06 are hereby set aside with directions that the appellant be given an opportunity to lead evidence. The appellant is burdened with the cost of of Rs.1000/ to be 3 RCA 219/06 deposited with DLSA, Central.
Parties to appear before Ld.Trial Court on 01.04.11 at 2.00pm. Copy of this order as well as Trial court Record be sent to the concerned Trial Court / Successor Court.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
(Gautam Manan) ASCJ/Delhi/28.3.11 4 RCA 219/06 RCA .219/07 Sh.Badulla Ansari Versus Sh.Kuldip singh 28.3.11 Present: Sh R P Singh counsel for appellant.
Vide separate orders the appeal filed on behalf of appellant against orders dated 24.11.06 passed by Ld.Trial Court wherein the suit of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to lead evidence in the suit is set aside with directions that the appellant be given an opportunity to lead evidence. The appellant is burdened with the cost of of Rs.1000/ to be deposited with DLSA, Central.
Parties to appear before Ld.Trial Court on 01.04.11 at 2.00pm. Copy of this order as well as Trial court Record be sent to the concerned Trial Court / Successor Court.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
(Gautam Manan) ASCJ/Delhi/28.3.11 5 RCA 219/06