IMPORTANT POINT
A party cannot be penalized for the fault of their counsel, and lawyers must fulfill their professional duties to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.

ORDER :

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 27.07.2024 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bemetara (CG) in Civil Suit No.46-A/2017, whereby, opportunity of the plaintiff/petitioner to adduce the evidence was closed.

2. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession in respect of the suit land. In the said suit, earlier he has filed an affidavit in the form of Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC for examination of the chief witness and one of the witnesses was examined on 24.07.2024 in presence of one of lawyers namely Shri Anand Sahu. On 27.07.2024, when the case was fixed for further evidence, though some witnesses of the plaintiff were reached to the concerned Court, however, the plaintiff has neither produced the said witnesses before the trial Court and informed the Court that original counsel is coming from outside and only in the presence of said counsel, examination of the witnesses has to be done. When the matter was taken up in the second round, on the same day, though the trial Court has made a direction that cross-examination of the witnesses can be done in presence of local lawyer Shri Anand Sahu, however, plaintiff again prayed for sometime. Thereafter, the trial Court has taken up the matter several times on the same day and when the case was taken up in the sixth round, local counsel Shri Anand Sahu informed to the Court that he has tried to contact the plaintiff as well as the original counsel but their mobiles are switched off. In such compelling circumstances, the trial Court observed that though several opportunities have already been given by imposing a cost, however, the plaintiff witnesses have not turned up for cross-examination, as a result of which, opportunity to adduce the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Hence, this petition.

3. Before commencing the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff informed that earlier the plaintiff had filed WP (227) No.316/2024 before this Court challenging the order dated 1.4.2024 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Class-I, Bemetara in Civil suit No.46-A/2017 whereby application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was dismissed. He submits that the said petition was allowed by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier also prayer for adjournments was allowed by the trial Court on reasonable grounds, therefore, the trial Court should not have refused the prayer for adjournment. He also submits that on the date of passing of impugned order i.e. 27.07.2024, the petitioner has engaged outside lawyer but he could not reach the trial Court within time. In such circumstances, when the client was willing to engage outside lawyer and local lawyer could not represent the case, the party should not be penalized, particularly, for the fault of the lawyer. He also submits that the parties are villagers and they depend upon their lawyer for the court proceedings. Therefore, as a last indulgence, an opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff to adduce evidence by imposing suitable cost in order to advance the cause of justice.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the defendants supports the impugned order.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the trial Court along with documents annexed with the petition.

7. It is well established that counsel appearing for a litigant has to have institutional responsibility. From perusal of the orders of the trial Court, it is apparent that on 24.07.2024, Shri Anand Sahu, Advocate himself conducted examination of main witness Gofelal Banjare, however, on the next date of hearing on 27.07.2024, he informed the trial Court that though witnesses have reached the Court, however, they are waiting for outside lawyer. Thereafter, the trial Court has taken up the matter sever