The main legal point established in the judgment is the pivotal nature of the right to lead evidence in ensuring a fair trial and the importance of granting opportunities to parties to place their respective stands on record.

JUDGEMENT

1. Learned Counsel for the parties have argued the matter and are agreeable to the matter being disposed of at this stage.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 16th November, 2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge ('the learned CJ'), whereby the right of the petitioner to lead his evidence, as the defendant before the learned CJ in CS 9739/2016, was closed.

3. The petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for modification of the order dated 16th November, 2021, and for permitting the filing of defence evidence. That application was dismissed vide order dated 05th January, 2022. A further application, seeking review of the order dated 05th January, 2022, was also dismissed by the learned CJ vide order dated 11th March, 2022.

4. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails all the three orders, i.e. the orders passed on 16th November, 2021, 5th January, 2022 and 11th March, 2022.

5. The issue in controversy being narrow, it is not necessary to allude to the specifics of the dispute between the parties. Suffice it to state that, by order dated 27th February, 2020, the petitioner was directed to file its defence evidence in the suit, on or before 22nd April, 2020. I may note, here, that Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent, has sought to contend that the petitioner had been remiss on earlier occasions. That, in my view, may not be of particular significance, especially in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. Chandra Govindji, (2000) 8 SCC 532 in which case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, where the refusal of the Court below to grant adjournment on a particular date was under challenge, adjournments granted earlier were irrelevant, as there was a presumption that they were granted for good reason.

6. Before 22nd April, 2020, the COVID-2019 pandemic had struck the country. Given the constraints faced by litigants, the Supreme Court, on 23rd March, 2020, directed, in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re, (2020) 9 SCC 468 that periods of limitation in all proceedings, irrespective of whether the limitation was prescribed under general or special laws, and irrespective of whether delay was, or was not, condonable would stand extended w.e.f. 15th March, 2020, till further orders to be passed by the Supreme Court. Till the date on which the right of the petitioner to lead defence evidence was closed i.e. till 16th November, 2021, it is not in dispute that this order continued to remain in force.

7. Mr. Tripathi has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Product Pvt. Ltd., 2021 2 SCC 317 In that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation in which the normal period of limitation for moving the Court had expired prior to 15th March, 2020, and the litigant was seeking the benefit of the order dated 23rd March, 2020, in Cognisance for Extension of Limitation2, on the ground that the condonable period of limitation had expired after 15 th March, 2020. The Supreme Court turned down the request, opining that the benefit of its order dated 23rd March, 2020, as available only to vigilant litigants and would not in any case apply where the normal period of limitation had expired prior to 15th March, 2020.

8. The learned CJ has held the aforesaid order dated 23rd March, 2020, of the Supreme Court as inapplicable to the facts of this case, as, according to him, the latitude granted by the Supreme Court was only in respect of statutory periods of limitation or periods of limitation fixed by the law for the time being in force, whereas the requirement of the petitioner filing its defence evidence on or before 22nd April, 2020 was not on account of any statutory period of limitation but because of an order passed by the Court.

9. That aspect may not, however, be of much significance, as the learned CJ, has, in his subsequent order date