Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Harvinder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Baljinder Kaur and others - Respondents
CR No. 656 of 2017
Decided On : 21-07-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.K. Garg
For the Respondent: Mr. Karanvir Singh Khehar
The court emphasized the importance of timely and diligent conduct in legal proceedings, and the significance of parties fulfilling their obligations to produce evidence within the stipulated timeframes.
Headnote:
Recall of Order - Civil Procedure - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, Article 227 of the Constitution of India - 13.01.2017 - 2013(1) PLR 404
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a revision petition challenging the order dismissing the application to recall the order closing the evidence. The plaintiff filed a suit in 1995, closed evidence in 2006, and the defendant failed to produce evidence despite multiple opportunities. The suit was dismissed in default in 2012 and restored in 2016. The defendant sought to recall the order after nine years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant was given ample opportunities to produce evidence, failed to do so, and delayed the proceedings. The court held that the defendant's conduct did not warrant interference with the trial court's order.
Issues: Whether the defendant's conduct warranted recalling the order closing the evidence after a significant delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the defendant had been given multiple opportunities to produce evidence, failed to do so, and delayed the proceedings. The court also considered the defendant's active involvement in other litigations and the significant delay in seeking to recall the order.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. The defendant No.2 has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ludhiana dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.2 to recall the order dated 04.01.2008 and re-open the suit for recording the evidence.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit on 06.12.1995. After pretty long time, the plaintiff closed her evidence on 13.10.2006.
3. Thereafter the case was fixed for defendant's evidence. The zimni orders (daily orders) passed by the Court on 15.01.2007, 15.02.2007, 13.03.2007, 05.04.2007, 08.05.2007, 30.05.2007, 12.11.2007, 23.11.2007, 07.12.2007, 13.12.2007, and 04.01.2008 are extracted as under:-
“Present:- Counsel for the parties.
No evidence of defendant produced today. Be produced on 15.2.07 at own responsibility.
CJJD/Ldh/15.1.07
Present:- Counsel for the parties.
No Dws is present on request. The case is adjourned to 13/3/07 for DWs to be produced at own responsibility.
Sd/-
15.2.
Present:- Counsel for the parties.
No DW is present. Adjourned requested by counsel of the defendant which has been granted. Now to come upon 05.04.2007 for defendant evidence. For defendant evidence No.1 at his own responsibility.
CJJD/LDH
13.03.2007
Present:- Counsel for the parties.
No DW is present due to illness. Adjourned requested which has been granted by counsel. Now to come upon 08.05.2007 for defendant evidence. Subject to last opportunity as per previous order.
CJJD/LDH
05.04.2007
Present:- Counsel for the parties.
DW Babu Singh present and tendered his affidavit. Copy supplied. For cross-examination DWs is bound down for 30.05.2007.
CJJD/LDH
08.05.2007
Present:- Counsel for the parties.
No DW is present. Ld. Counsel for the defendant reported that defendant Babu Singh has expired. Now he wants to file application for impleading LRs of defendant Babu Singh and request for adjournment, which is granted in the interest of justice. Case stands adjourned to 23.07.07 for filing application for impleading LRs of Babu Singh, if any.
CJJD/30.05.07
Present:- Counsel for the parties.
No DW is present. DWs be produced on 23.11.07 through last opportunity.
CJJD/12.11.07
Present:- Counsel for the parties.
No DW is present. DW be produced on 7.12.07.
CJJD/23.11.07
Present:- As above.
No DW is present. DWs be produced on 13.12.07 through last opportunity.
CJJD/7.12.07
Present:- As above.
No DW is present. Today was the last opportunity. Adjourning request by counsel for defendant. Perusal of file show that defendant has already availed numbers of opportunity to conclude his entire evidence but failed to conclude the evidence and counsel for defendant made statement that he will produce his entire evidence subject to last opportunity failing which evidence defendant shall deemed to be closed. Adj to 4.1.08 for DWs subject to last chance. No further opportunity.
CJJD/13.12.07
Present:- As above.
No DW is present. Today was the last opportunity the defendant to conclude his entire evidence but the defendant could not conclude his evidence. Adjournment request by the counsel for defendant which is opposed by the opposite party. The case relates the year 1995 and is old one. The defendant has availed many opportunity including many last opportunities to the defendant but the defendant has failed to conclude his entire evidence. No ground is made out further adjourning the case the DWs. As such the evidence of the defendant is closed by order. Adjourn to 14.1.08 for rebuttal evidence it and for argument.
CJJD/4.1.08”
4. Thereafter the suit was fixed for arguments. The case was adjourned for final arguments on two occasions. It appears, thereafter an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking amendment of the plaint. Once again the case was adjourned on more than 10 occasions for consideration on the application seeking amendment of the plaint. Ultimately, on 28.01.2012, app
