The main legal point established is that the court must carefully scrutinize pleadings and documents, and litigants must establish sufficient cause for their actions in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

1. The appellants were the plaintiffs before the Court below. They had instituted the suit for relief of permanent injunction against respondents/defendants. The suit was pending from the year 1997. Several interlocutory applications were filed and they were decided. The case was set down for plaintiffs evidence on 12.11.2009. Before that plaintiff had filed an application for amendment of plaint (IA.No.17) and it was dismissed on 11.11.2009 and the case was adjourned to 12.11.2009. On 12.11.2009, an application was filed for adjournment of suit. The learned trial Judge taking into consideration that the suit for permanent injunction was pending from the year 1997 (for over a period of 12 years) and appellants have no impediment to adduce evidence, rejected the application and dismissed the suit for non prosecution. Therefore, they are before this Court.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for appellants and learned Counsel for respondents.

3. The learned trial Judge has not passed an exparte order of dismissal for default. The application filed by plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC was rejected and thereafter, suit was dismissed. Therefore, appellant could not have invoked provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.

4. In the enquiry held on the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, PW-1, witness of petitioner, has given altogether a different version. PW-1 has not deposed that he was ill and he had been prevented from sufficient cause to appear before the Court on 12.11.2009. It is also evident from the fact that learned Counsel for plaintiffs had sought for adjournment on the ground that plaintiffs want to challenge the order made by the trial Court on the application made under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. PW-1 has clearly admitted that there was no negotiations for settlement as reported by plaintiffs on previous hearing date.

5. The learned Counsel for appellants relying on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 9 (in the case of Alka Gupta vs. Narender Kumar Gupta) would submit that a suit cannot be dismissed without trial, merely because the Court feels dissatisfied with the conduct of plaintiff.

6. In the case on hand, the learned trial Judge, after dismissing the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has dismissed the suit for non prosecution. Therefore, conduct of plaintiff on previous hearing date was not the reason for dismissal of suit for non prosecution.

7. In a decision reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249 (Ramrameshwari Devi and Others vs. Nirmala Devi and others), the Supreme Court while considering the reasons for delay in civil litigation and also effective measures to be taken to drastically change the existing system or improve the existing system has given following directions:

A. Pleadings are the foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial Judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.

B. The Court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at the truth of the matter and doing substantial justice.

C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.

D. The court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The court must carefully keep in view the ground realiti