Court affirmed limited intervention under Article 227 when no jurisdictional errors occur, reinforcing the necessity for litigants to actively pursue their cases.

ORDER (Oral)

1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 10th December 2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS DJ ADJ 15466/2016 (Raj Rani & Anr. v. Sumitra Parashar & Anr.), which reads as under:

"CS DJ ADJ 15466/16

RAJ RANI vs. SUMITRA PRASAR

10.12.2021

Present: Sh. Rahul Hans, Ld. Proxy Counsel for plaintiff.

Ms. Amrit Kaur, Ld. Counsel for defendant along with defendant.

Fresh Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of plaintiff. Ld. Proxy Counsel for plaintiff requested for one more opportunity to examine the witness stating that plaintiff has engaged new Counsel recently. Request of the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is opposed by Ld. Counsel for defendant stating that plaintiff is deliberately lingering on the matter. Ld. Counsel for defendant also relied her objection upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7532 of 2011 titled as "Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast Private Limited And Others."

I have considered the submissions. Perusal of file reveals that so many opportunities have already been granted to plaintiff to complete PE. On previous date, the cost was also imposed upon plaintiff for giving a last and final opportunity but despite that neither cost has been paid not any steps were taken by the plaintiff to lead PE. In view of facts and circumstances and previous order-sheets. Court finds that plaintiff is deliberately lingering on the matter and is not interested to take steps to lead PE. Hence, PE is closed.

Defendant is directed to take appropriate steps to file affidavit. Put up for DE on 13.01.2022.

In previous order-sheet, inadvertently DE was mentioned instead of PE due to typographical error. Same is corrected accordingly.

Sd./-

(Dr. Jagminder Singh)

ADJ-03/South West

Dwarka/New Delhi

10.12.2021"

2. Consequent to the direction issued by this Court on 27th July 2022, the entire order sheets, from the date when recording of evidence commenced, have been handed over by learned Counsel for the petitioners across the Bar. The same are taken on record.

3. The impugned order closes the right of the petitioner, as the plaintiff in the suit before the learned ADJ, to lead further evidence, on the ground that several opportunities had been granted to the petitioner to complete the exercise of recording of PE.

4. It is not necessary to set out in detail the entire course of proceedings before the learned ADJ, regarding recording of evidence of the petitioner, as plaintiff.

5. One may commence the recital from 20th February 2020, on which date PW-2, Dheeraj Kumar, Record Keeper, from office of Sub-Registrar-V, Mehrauli was examined, cross-examined and discharged. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the said date sought an adjournment "for the remaining PE". Learned Counsel for the respondent raised an objection to the number of witnesses cited by the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner had furnished a list of 24 PWs, and that it was not necessary to examine all the PWs.

6. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 26th February 2020, the petitioner gave up twelve of the witnesses in his list and submitted that he sought to lead evidence only of the witnesses at Serial Nos. 5,6,7,11,12,13,14,16 and 17, who were official witnesses. An application for summoning the said official witnesses was tendered and the petitioner was directed to take steps for summoning the aforesaid witnesses. The matter was re-notified for 23rd March 2020.

7. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on six occasions owing