Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and R.K.Choudhary JJ.
Kumar Basant Narain Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Appeal From Original Order No. 51 of 1958 ; 59 of 1958 ; 62 of 1958 ; 70 of 1958 ; 73 of 1958 ; 76 of 1958 ;
Decided On : APRIL 18, 1958
COMPROMISE - Recording of Compromise - Application for recording compromise - Court's discretion to refuse to summon witnesses - Bona fide application - Abuse of process - Laches and negligence - Order 16, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a batch of 246 title suits against the State of Bihar in 1948. After protracted litigation, the cases were fixed for hearing on 22-7-1957. Two days before the hearing, plaintiffs applied for an extension of time due to illness of witnesses, which was rejected. On 22-7-1957, plaintiffs submitted an application stating that a compromise had been negotiated between the State of Bihar and the plaintiffs, and sought an adjournment for two months to complete the formalities. The State of Bihar denied the settlement. On 29-7-1957, plaintiffs filed an application under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, for recording the compromise and passing a decree in accordance with it. The court directed the parties to file rejoinders and take steps for summoning witnesses. On 17-8-1957, the State of Bihar filed a rejoinder challenging the settlement. Plaintiffs deposited Rs. 1,000 towards the cost of witnesses and were directed to deposit a further Rs. 6,000 by 22-8-1957. On 20-8-1957, plaintiffs applied for issuing notices to plaintiffs of other suits allegedly settled under the compromise. The court adjourned the hearing to 24-8-1957. On 23-8-1957, plaintiffs obtained a stay order from the District Judge, which was vacated on 31-10-1957. The court directed the parties to be ready for the hearing of the compromise matter on 15-11-1957. On 11-11-1957, plaintiffs applied for issuing notices to plaintiffs of other suits, which was rejected. The court fixed 2-12-1957 for hearing the compromise matter and directed plaintiffs to deposit the balance of Rs. 6,000 towards the cost of witnesses. Plaintiffs deposited Rs. 5,000 on 21-11-1957 and filed processes for issuing summonses to witnesses. On 25-11-1957, plaintiffs deposited the balance of Rs. 1,000 and filed processes for dasti summonses to witnesses. On 2-12-1957, plaintiffs filed a revision application in the High Court, which was dismissed with a direction to take up the matter under Order 23, Rule 3 on 11-1-1958. Plaintiffs did not take any steps to serve summonses on their witnesses until 2-1-1958, when they filed a petition for dasti summonses, which was allowed. The court adjourned the hearing to 20-1-1958 due to the Presiding Officer's leave. On 11-1-1958, plaintiffs filed process fees and processes, and the court directed them to take dasti summonses to their witnesses. On 16-1-1958, plaintiffs applied for extension of time, which was rejected. On 20-1-1958, plaintiffs again applied for time, which was rejected, and the court proceeded with the hearing of the compromise matter. Plaintiffs did not appear, and the court rejected the application for recording the compromise.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were guilty of wilful laches and negligence in failing to take proper steps in time to have their witnesses summoned. The court also found that the plaintiffs' application for summoning witnesses was not bona fide and was an abuse of the process of the court. The court further found that there was no evidence on record to prove that a final decision on the compromise had been reached by the Government or communicated to the plaintiffs.
Issues: 1. Whether the court had the discretion to refuse to summon witnesses for the plaintiffs in the compromise matter. 2. Whether the plaintiffs' application for summoning witnesses was bona fide or an abuse of the process of the court. 3. Whether there was evidence on record to prove that a final decision on the compromise had been reached by the Government and communicated to the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court has inherent jurisdiction to protect itself from the abuse of its own procedure. 2. The court may refuse to summon witnesses if the application is not bona fide or is an abuse of the process of the court. 3. The plaintiffs' conduct in having their witnesses summoned was hopeless and mala fide. 4. The plaintiffs failed to make a written application for summoning witnesses on 11-1-1958 or subsequent to that date. 5. The plaintiffs failed to press their application under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, on the date on which it was finally fixed to be heard. 6. The plaintiffs were guilty of wilful laches and negligence.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.
R.K.Choudhary, J.
1. This is a batch of ten Miscellaneous Appeals arising out of nine title suits. A batch of 246 suits had been instituted by different plaintiffs against the State of Bihar and others in the year 1948. After a protracted litigation for about ten years, the cases were ultimately fixed for hearing on 22-7-1957. Two days before that date, i.e., on 20-7-1957, an application for extension of time was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground of illness of the witnesses, but the petition for extension of time was rejected. On 22-7-1957, an application was made on behalf of the plaintiffs stating that Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh of Ramgarh and his representatives negotiated for a compromise in all the suits as between the State of Bihar and the Raja Bahadur and his transferees and that the compromise had been arrived at covering most of the suits and a copy of the terms of the agreement was attached with the application.
It was also stated that the terms and conditions were finally confirmed by the Raja Bahadur and that it was expected that the formal order with regard to the filing of a joint petition of compromise will be issued by the Government of Bihar within a reasonable period. It was, therefore, prayed that the suits be adjourned for two months for the completion of the formalities of the compromise. The lawyer appearing for the State of Bihar, however, submitted that he did not receive any instruction from the Government in this regard and the cases were adjourned to 29-7-1857.
On that date, on behalf of the defendant, the State of Bihar, a petition was filed stating that no terms and conditions of compromise had been settled between the parties. On the same Sate an application under Order 23, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for recording the compromise and passing a decree in accordance with it. On 9-8-1957, several documents were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs which were treated as part of the application filed on 29-7-1957, for recording the compromise. 26-8-1957 was fixed for the hearing of the above application with a direction to the defendants to file rejoinder, if any, by 17-8-1957.
Parties were directed to take note that the compromise matter will be definitely heard on 26-8-1957, and they were directed to take all steps within proper time. They were also directed to take steps at once if they wanted to examine any witness on commission or to call for any document or to summon any witness. On 17-8-1957, a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the defendant, the State of Bihar, challenging the settlement of the dispute by compromise between the parties. On that date a list of witnesses to be summoned by the court and a petition with a prayer for issue of summonses to the witnesses were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and a sum of Rs. 1000 as expenses for witnesses was deposited in court and process fee of Rs. 36/- for summoning the witnesses was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. The list of witnesses contained the names of 48 witnesses including some Ministers, Secretariat Officers, Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Members of the Parliament who were either in Calcutta or at Patna or at New Delhi.
As a sum of Rs. 1,000 only had been deposited towards the cost of witnesses, the plaintiffs were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,000/-more towards the same by 22-8-1957, and they were further required to give an undertaking to the court that they will deposit forthwith any extra amount the court will order in future to meet the cost of the witnesses. It was also ordered that after compliance of this order necessary orders will be passed for summoning the witnesses. The plaintiffs were also directed to file necessary processes with correct addresses of the witnesses by 22-8-1957. It appears that there was a different batch of 33 title suits which were also alleged to have been settled under the compromise along with these 246 suits but
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
