The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to prevent the abuse of court process and delay tactics, and the importance of following specific procedures while recording evidence and marking documents.

ORDER :

The suit has been filed for recovery of rental arrears.

2. Proof affidavit of PW1 was received on 20.04.2022 and he was examined on the same day in chief and exhibits were marked. Cross examination of P.W.1 was completed on 12.01.2023. Thereafter, When P.W.2 was present on 28.02.2023, the counsel for the defendant was not ready and hence, the matter was adjourned to 08.03.2023. Thereafter, he was examined and exhibits were marked. On 27.03.2023, he was cross examined. Thereafter, though P.W.3 was examined on 18.04.2023 in chief and exhibits were marked, till now, he has not been cross examined. Though the master had directed the matter to be listed before this court on 22.11.2023, the same was listed before this court on 15.12.2023 after a delay of more than 20 days.

3. The manner in which adjournments have been granted from 2022 would, in fact, clearly indicate that the process of Court has been abused on the Original Side, taking advantage of the fact that the Master or Additional Masters are recording evidence. This Court is of the view that if these kinds of adjournments are allowed, it will not only defeat the very object of the trial, but also, the concept of speedy justice.

4. Considering the nature of adjournments sought in this application is classic example as to how adjournment has been sought at the whims and fancies and the witness has been taken for task. It is also seen from the record that the PW3 has not been cross examined since April 2023.

5. Assessing the conduct of the defendant, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the defendant to cross examine the witness and adduce the documentary evidences, subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- to the Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai on or before 22.12.2023.

6. Time and again, this Court is faced with cases which are referred to Additional Masters for recording evidence with a fixed timeliness being sent back by the Additional Masters, for simple reason that objections have been raised by one party, while marking of the documents. This has become a ploy to deliberately derail trail by raising all and sundry objections, frivolous or otherwise, at the stage of marking documents resulting in the suit being sent back to the Court once again, in this way system is being deliberately maneuvered causing delay.

7. Most of the cases have been referred by the Master under the premise that they have no power to decide the admissibility of the documents or any evidences. In view of such practice which has developed in the Original Side to refer the matters from the Master or Additional Master to the Court, even when a document sought to be marked, objection is raised only in order to delay the recording of evidence. This Court is of the view that in order to curb such practice necessary directions have to be issued in this regard.

8. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Original Side, 1994.

Order I Rule 4 (8) defines the “Master” means and includes “Additional Master” of the High Court at Madras;

Order I Rule 4 (3) defines the “Court” includes a Judge, or Master, or First Assistant Registrar, Original Side.

In Sreyas Sripal Vs. Upasana Financial Limited reported in (2007) 4 MLJ 978, a Division Bench of this Court considered the scope of Section 128 (2)(i) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order XXX Rule 3 of Original Side Rules. Considering the above provision, the Division Bench held that the Master exercised power as delegate under Original Side Rules. It was also observed that where the statute itself has authorised the power to confer upon specific authority, the Statute of delegate is that of an agent.

Order XVII Rule 13 reads as follows:

“R.13. (1) The oral evidence adduced at the hearing of any suit or other proceedings shall be typed in narrative form to the dictation of the Presiding Judge than and there. The questions put to the witness need not be typed unless the Presiding Judge con