Back
1994 Supreme(Cal) 59
High Court Of Calcutta
S. K. MUKHERJEE, NRIPENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA
LILAVATI DEVI ALIAS LILAVATI SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
KELVIN JUTE AND CO.LTD. - Respondent
Suit 113 Of 1985
Decided On : 02/21/1994
A.SUKLA, J.SAHA, N.CHATURVEDI, P.Shroff
The court emphasized the importance of expediting proceedings and preventing tactics that cause prejudice and delay.
Headnote:Adjournment - Civil Procedure Code - Order 18, Rule 2(4) - Section 151 - The court allowed the defendant's application for adjournment under Order 18, Rule 2(4) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to adduce further evidence. The defendant claimed to have found documents that were crucial to their case. However, the court found that the defendant had been using various tactics to delay the proceedings and cause prejudice to the plaintiff. The court set aside the order allowing the adjournment, stating that it would cause a failure of justice and irreparable injury to the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant based on default and breach of lease terms. The defendant took several adjournments and failed to produce necessary documents. The defendant then applied for adjournment to adduce further evidence, claiming to have found crucial documents.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had been using tactics to delay the proceedings and cause prejudice to the plaintiff.Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that allowing the adjournment and re-examination of the defendant's witness would cause prejudice to the plaintiff's case and result in a failure of justice. Final Decision: The court set aside the order allowing the adjournment and directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit.( 1 ) HEARD the ld. Advocates for parties and perused the record.
( 2 ) THE landlord-petitioner by this revision challenged order No. 78 dated 21st day of July, 1992 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 113 of 1985, allowing the Tenant's Defendant's application under Order 18, Rule 2 (4) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.
( 3 ) THE short background of the case is that the Opposite Party was a Tenant regarding 3rd floor at Premises No. P-545, Lake Road Extension, Calcutta-700 029, at a monthly rental of Rs. 750. 00 on the basis of a Registered Lease dated 19th day of June, 1964 for a period of 21 years commencing from 1st day of June, 1964 and expiring on 31st day of May, 1985.
( 4 ) THE owner-landlord brought the aforesaid suit in the 3rd Court of Assistant District Judge, Alipore, for eviction of the said tenant defendant from the suit premises on the ground of default, for breach of terms of lease on the ground that certain structural additions or alterations of the suit premises has been made by the tenant and also on the ground of expiry of the period of lease by efflux of time. Amongst other prayers were also made for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from January 1984, for means of profits etc.
( 5 ) THE defendant took several adjournments to file the written statement and ultimately filed the written statement after suffering order for ex parte hearing and adjournment cost. 5a. The ld. trial Court allowed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code of one Mr. Sumar Chand Mehta, an employee of the defendant company, on the ground that the defendant has settled the flat with the said Mr. Mehta. A Division Bench of this Court has set aside that order.
( 6 ) THE defendant made another application on 6th day of March, 1987 for taking steps to discover documents and the ld. Assistant District Judge granted time to the defendant. Since then the defendant took several adjournments on different dates to discover documents. The adjournment dates are 14-12-87, 5-2-88, 16-3-88, 27-5-88 and 12-9-88 but ultimately did not discover any document.
( 7 ) UPON plaintiff's prayer the suit was fixed for peremptory hearing on 21st day of June, 1989. Even at that stage the defendant took adjournment and suffered an order of costs of Rs. 50. 00 as condition precedent.
( 8 ) THE examination of the plaintiff's witness started on 7th of August, 1989 and P. W. 1, Mrs. Hem Kumari Chaturvedi was examined and cross-examined for several dates and her cross-examination was completed on 15-7-91.
( 9 ) IN the meantime upon an application under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure an Advocate Commissioner, Smt. Supriya Mukherjee, was appointed for local inspection of the suit premises and she submitted her report. She was examined as P. W. 2 on 12th of August, 1991 and her cross-examined was over on 25th of September, 1991.
( 10 ) ON 28th of November, 1991 the defendant produced its witness one Mr. Debakar Chatterjee, who was examined in part and the suit was adjourned to 18th of December, 1991. On that date the defendant took an adjournment and the suit was fixed for hearing on 13-1-92. Upon the prayer of the defendant the examination of D. W. 1 was postponed on 13-1-92 and on 6-2-92 with cost of Rs. 500. 00. The defendant again tendered his witness Mr. Debakar Chatterjee on 25-2-92. He was examined in full and cross-examined in part on that day. Since then he was not tendered for further cross-examination and his cross-examination remained in complete.
( 11 ) 12th of March, 1992 was fixed for further evidence of D. W. l, Mr. Debakar Chatterjee. The defence Counsel expressed before the Court his inability to produce the said witness in spite of his best endeavour to do so and on his invitation to pass any order commensurate with the circumstances the Trial Court passed order for closing the evidence and fixed 19-3-1992 f
