Evidence

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 16th May, 2018, whereby the Civil Court has closed the right of petitioner-plaintiff to lead his evidence.

2. The order dated 16th May, 2018 was also assailed by the petitioner by filing an application under Sections 151 and 152 of CPC and the said prayer has also been declined by the Civil Court vide order dated 15th January, 2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that though suit has been filed by the petitioner challenging the sale deed, executed in favour of the respondent-defendant, however, the evidence of the petitioner could not be completed, as during pendency of the suit, sometimes proceedings were transferred to the different Courts and sometimes, there was even suggestion of settling the dispute amicably.

4. Learned counsel submitted that in absence of any evidence in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, the suit, filed by the petitioner, could not be properly prosecuted by him and as such, in the interest of justice, this Court may interfere in the present case and grant one opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court below has rightly rejected prayer of the petitioner to lead evidence, as the suit was pending since 2007 and the Civil Court was obliged to dispose of the matter, which were pending from more than ten years.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the issues in the suit were framed on 19th March, 2013 and on 26th April, 2018, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence and even when the last opportunity was not availed by the petitioner, the Court below has rightly passed the order dated 16 th May, 2018.

7. Learned counsel submitted that even if the suit is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff and the matter is not further reached to the stage of recording evidence, the Courts below are required to refuse opportunity of evidence to such defaulting parties.

8. Learned counsel submitted that vexatious litigation, initiated by the petitioner, has to meet with this kind of fate as the court proceedings are taken for granted without any justifiable cause and adjournments have been sought.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that even the ground of illness, which was taken of not producing evidence, was not supported by any cogent evidence and as such, the Court below had no option but to pass the said order.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent also places reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gayathri v. M.Girish [(2016) 14 SCC 142] as well as in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors. [(2011) 8 SCC 249].

11. On the strength of said judgments, learned counsel submitted that the concept of justice, is to dispose of the case in speedy manner and if undue delay is caused, in producing evidence, the purpose of Civil Procedure Code to enable the Court to give justice in speedy manner, is frustrated.

12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. This Court finds that though the suit is filed in the year 2007 and yet the petitioner did not complete his evidence till he was given several opportunities by the Court below.

14. This Court further finds that the Court below had imposed cost at one point of time for producing evidence and yet the petitioner failed to do so.

15. This Court finds that if the suit is filed by the present petitioner and issues have been framed then in the interest of justice, one opportunity may be given to the petitioner to lead his evidence.

16. This Court finds that the case was transferred to the different Courts and parties also tried to have amicable settlement of the dispute.

17. This Court, considering the facts of this case, find that in the interest of justice, the petitioner is required to be given one opportunity to produce eviden