Compliance with court orders is critical; repeated failure to follow procedural directions justifies denial of applications seeking relief from prior court decisions.

Mahant Ayudhya Dass & Anr. Vs. Pritam Singh & Ors.

Present: None.

Arguments were already heard on the application u/o 9 Rule 7 CPC.

It is submitted in the present application that the absence of the defendants on the last date of hearing i.e. 13/05/2022 was neither intentional nor deliberate as the counsel for the defendants was in personal difficulty and the e-mail for the same requesting to appear through VC was made on the officials mail ID of this court. However, due to bad network, counsel for the defendants was not able to connect after various attempts.

It is further submitted that the present application is moved bonafide and it is prayed that the order dated 13/05/2022 whereby the right of the defendants to cross examine and declaring the defendants as ex-parte be recalled. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the present application and has submitted that the present application has been moved with malafide intention just to delay the proceedings of the case. It is further submitted that for the cross examination, the physical appearance of the witness of the defendants was necessary and the same was not possible through VC and even the defendants have not paid the cost.

Perusal of the record shows that on 05/03/2022 when the case was fixed for DE, adjournment was sought by proxy counsel for the defendants on the ground that the main counsel was not present due to personal difficulty. Therefore, adjournment was given subject to cost of Rs.1000/- but on the next date on 26/03/2022 again adjournment was sought on behalf of the defendants as the witness was stated to be not well. Therefore, adjournment was given subject to further cost of Rs.2,000/-.

On the next date of hearing i.e. 07/04/2022, affidavit of the DW-1 was filed which was without attestation and on the next date of hearing i.e. 22/04/2022 the defendants instead of filing fresh affidavit of the DW-1 has filed the application u/s 151 CPC for recalling the order dated 07/04/2022 closing of the evidence of the DW-1. The said application was disposed of by permitting the defendants to file fresh affidavit subject to cost of Rs.7,000/- which also included the previous cost and it was also noted that the evidence of the DW-1 was never closed. It appears that the defendant instead of filing his affidavit in evidence intentionally filed the above application to delay the proceedings of the case.

On the next date of hearing i.e. 13/05/2022, the defendants neither paid the costs nor appeared in the present case. In the said order sheet, it was observed that the request sent by the defendants to conduct the proceedings through e- mail was rejected as the said request was not sent in advance to the opposite party and the witness was also not present physically in the court for the purpose of evidence. It was also specifically observed that the case was old one and considering the conduct of the de