Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
Sumer Singh Saini - Petitioner
Versus
Hindustan Machines and Tools Ltd. And others - Respondents
CR No.4511 of 2016O&M)
Decided On : 17-11-2016
For the Petitioners:Mr. M.K.Dogra, Advocate.
A party is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard.
Headnote:
Adjournments - Civil Procedure - Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 2011(4) R.C.R (Civil) 807
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for grant of service benefits. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court. The petitioner availed numerous opportunities to produce evidence but failed to do so, leading to the closure of his evidence by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's conduct was adamant and intentional, and he had availed 19 opportunities to lead evidence but failed to do so. The court concluded that the impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity and dismissed the revision petition with costs.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's persistent failure to produce evidence despite numerous opportunities and the legality of the trial court's decision to close the petitioner's evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a party is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The court also highlighted that the past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important circumstance to consider when a request for adjournment is made.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited with the District Legal Service Authority.
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
CM No. 18496-CII of 2016
This application has been filed for placing on record the certified copies of all the interim orders passed by the learned trial Court.
Heard.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the application stands allowed and the certified copies of all the interim orders passed by the learned trial Court are taken on record subject to just objections of the opposite party.
CR No. 4511 of 2016(O&M)
The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 27.05.2016, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kalka, whereby the application moved by the petitioner- plaintiff for permitting him to summon the record mentioned in Annexure A-VII and A-VIII, K.P.Mishra and to tender his affidavit along with documents in his evidence, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application moved by the petitioner on 18.01.2016 was declined by the learned trial Court to summon the remaining record mentioned in Annexure A-VII and A-VIII. But, on the same day, the learned trial Court allowed the application moved by the petitioner to supply him the copy of the record produced by respondent no.1. The said copies were supplied to the petitioner on 28.01.2016 and thereafter, the case was fixed for his evidence on 29.01.2016 by granting the last opportunity. Plaintiff has also placed on file his affidavit, but the same could not be tendered in evidence as the record mentioned in Annexure A-VII and A-VIII was to be tendered in his examination in chief. The record was voluminous and sufficient time was required to scrutinize the same. The learned trial Court has wrongly closed the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff on 29.01.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is al old man. He is fighting the suit for grant of his service benefits. If, he is not allowed to produce the record mentioned above and to tender his affidavit in evidence, he will suffer irreparable loss and will not able to prove his case.
3. He further contended that at least one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice so that he may adduce his evidence to prove the pleas raised by him in the suit. He should not be deprived of the fair opportunity to lead the evidence. Thus, he contended that the impugned order vide which his application to allow him to lead the evidence has been dismissed by the learned trial Court, is illegal.
4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.
5. This case has chequered history. The copy of the interim orders brought on record reflects the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the suit for mandamus directing the respondents to promote him as Supervisor WS-I/PS-II with all back benefits of seniority and increments. He also claimed the arrears of salary along with interest. He has sought the decree for declaration that the order dated 08.07.2003 passed by the respondents is illegal and is liable to be set aside, whereby the particular period in his service tenure was declared as 'no work no pay'.
6. It is pertinent to mention that initially the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2014. The petitioner preferred the appeal against the said judgment and decree. The learned First Appellate Court accepted the appeal. The judgment and decree dated 25.07.2014 passed by the learned trial Court was set aside. The case was remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to summon the witnesses of the petitioner mentioned in the application dated 17.02.2014 by giving not more than three opportunities of the reasonable time. Thereafter, the learned trial Court again started with the trial of the suit. After that numerous opportunities were granted by the learned trial Court to the petitioner-plaintiff to produce the evidence.
7. The copies of the
