Back
SAMEER JAIN
Vijay Bharti S/o Late Shri Prayag Chand Modi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Jhunjhunu – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 17.12.2016, passed in Civil Suit No. 76/2013 (21/2010) (27/2010) titled as ‘Vijay Bharti & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 29.09.2016 and for providing opportunity to the petitioner for adducing evidence was dismissed, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
2. The plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a suit in a representative capacity for removal of encroachment from the public Chowk and Gali. The defendant-respondent number 3 and 4 filed separate reply and on the basis of pleadings, 7 issues were framed by the Trial Court on 25.10.2010. The defendant-respondent number 3 and 4 moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1(4) of CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 11.09.2015 and the matter was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to bonafide reasons, such as ailments/health issues of petitioner no.4 and urgent work of the counsel, the evidence could not be submitted in time. However, without following principles
Point of Law : Adjournments should be ordinarily limited to three/four times in the life of the suit as also as per the provisions of Order 17 CPC.
The court emphasized that routine adjournments in civil proceedings undermine justice, necessitating strict adherence to statutory limits and the imposition of costs for delays.
The court reaffirmed the principle that parties must diligently prosecute their cases and that undue adjournments harm the justice system.
In summons trials, closing complainant's evidence justified for repeated non-appearance despite warnings and no exemption application; routine adjournments not permissible, courts must enforce day-to....
Trial courts justified in closing defence evidence after adjournments exceeding statutory limit of two under BNSS Section 346; fair trial does not permit endless adjournments defeating speedy justice....
The main legal point established is the strict adherence to Section 309 of Cr.P.C., requiring expeditious trials and continuous examination of witnesses, with adjournments only granted for special re....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
