Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
Madhusudan Lal Chopra – Petitioner
Versus
Bhupinder Bhawan Trust and another - Respondents
CR No. 25 of 2024
Decided On : 21-04-2024
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 17 Rule 1 and Rule 2(d) - Adjournments - Repeated adjournments sought by the petitioner led to the closure of evidence by the trial court - The court emphasized that adjournments should not be granted routinely and must be justified with valid reasons - The petitioner failed to provide sufficient justification for the repeated requests for adjournment, leading to the dismissal of the petition. (Paras 11, 12, 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's order closing evidence due to repeated adjournments sought without valid reasons, including the absence of witnesses and lack of medical documentation for the counsel's unavailability.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's decision to close evidence was justified due to the petitioner's failure to lead evidence despite multiple opportunities, demonstrating abuse of the civil process.
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court erred in closing evidence and the appropriateness of granting further adjournments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that repeated adjournments cannot be granted as a matter of right and emphasized the need for timely justice, stating that the justice delivery system should not be delayed by dilatory tactics.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
Caveat Petition No. 115 of 2025
Caveat discharged. The caveat petition stands disposed of.
The present petition has been filed laying a challenge to order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Case No. 139 of 2019 whereby the evidence of the petitioner/respondent before the trial Court stands closed vide orders of the Court.
2. Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. In order to support the impugned order, the caveator has placed on record the certified copies of the trial Court demonstrating the numerous occasions on which an adjournment was sought by the present petitioner to lead evidence and copies of application filed by the present petitioners before the trial Court seeking an adjournment.
3. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings.
4. Vide order dated 24.04.2024, the present respondent had closed their evidence. Only thereafter was a right given to the present petitioner to summon his witnesses by filing a list thereof. Witnesses were to be summoned on 11.07.2024. On 11.07.2024, no witnesses on behalf of the present petitioners were present before the trial Court as steps had not been taken. Further time of seven days were granted for taking steps, the matter was thereafter posted for 06.09.2024.
5. On 06.09.2024, no evidence on behalf of the present petitioner was present as yet again steps had not been taken. Further time was granted on 06.09.2024 for producing evidence on 11.11.2024. Yet again, no steps were taken within stipulated period of one week as was granted on 06.09.2024. Hence, on 11.11.2024, no evidence was present.
6. However, on 11.11.2024, an application was filed on behalf of the present petitioner seeking an adjournment. For the reasons stated in the application, the same was allowed and time for producing evidence was extended. While granting an extension, it was made clear that the evidence now be produced on self responsibility. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 08.01.2025.
7. Yet again no evidence on behalf of the present petitioner was present despite having been afforded last opportunity to lead evidence on self responsibility. However, on the said date, an application was filed stating therein that the present petitioner had undergone dialysis in Delhi and hence was confined to bed as he had been devised bed rest. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, by way of an exceptional opportunity, the matter was now posted for 7th March, 2025 for producing the evidence of the present petitioner on self responsibility.
8. On 07.03.2025, when the matter was listed, no witnesses on behalf of the present petitioner was present in the Court. An application on behalf of the present petitioner was filed seeking an adjournment. The reason cited in the application being that the counsel for the petitioner was unavailable on account of an eye operation. In the application, it was submitted that from 27th February, 2025 to 15th March, 2025, the counsel for the petitioner would be unavailable on account of eye operation.
9. In the aforesaid narrated circumstances in the case at hand and the fact that no medical record had been placed on record, the application was vehemently opposed by the present respondents before the trial Court. The objection being that no medical record had been appended alongwith with the present application to demonstrate the averments being made in the application.
10. Other than the aforesaid, keeping in view the last order dated 08.01.2025 whereby one last opportunity by way of an exception had been granted to the present petitioner to lead evidence on self responsibility and it had been made absolutely clear in the said order that no further adjournment shall be given for any reason whatsoever the trial court was of the view that no further opportunity could be granted to the present petitioner. Besides the aforesaid, keeping in view the track record of the present petitioner
Repeated adjournments in civil proceedings must be justified; courts should not grant them routinely to ensure timely justice.
Repeated adjournments in civil proceedings undermine the justice delivery system, and courts must enforce timely action to maintain public confidence.
The court condemns the misuse of adjournments and emphasizes the importance of timely justice delivery. It calls for a change in work culture to discourage unnecessary adjournments and maintain the r....
The right to lead defence evidence is fundamental, but repeated failures to present evidence can justify the closure of that right to ensure timely justice.
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 court reaffirmed the principle that parties must diligently prosecute their cases and that undue adjournments harm the justice system.
The court emphasized the necessity for timely justice and the detrimental impact of routine adjournments on the justice delivery system.
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
