Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, J
Madhusudan Lal Chopra – Appellant
Versus
Bhupinder Bhawan Trust – Respondent
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
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.
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
