Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1589
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
Janak Rani – Appellant
Versus
Jarnail Singh – Respondent
CR No. 1161 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-07-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate
Litigants are expected to be vigilant and pursue their cases, and courts should not show overindulgence towards negligent litigants.
Headnote:
Dismissal of Suit - Procedural Compliance - The court dismissed the suit in default due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with procedural requirements despite multiple opportunities granted by the court. The court emphasized the need for litigants to be vigilant and pursue their cases, and criticized the overindulgence shown towards the plaintiff in adjourning the case multiple times.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed in 2008, and the defendant was ordered to be summoned. The plaintiff failed to comply with procedural requirements, leading to the dismissal of the suit in default in 2011. An application for restoration was filed 5 years later, and the suit was restored. However, the plaintiff continued to fail to comply with the court's orders, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing the leniency shown by the trial court in accommodating the plaintiff over several years. The court criticized the plaintiff's lack of vigilance and the overindulgence of the court, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Issues: Failure to comply with procedural requirements, overindulgence of the court, lack of vigilance by the plaintiff
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for litigants to be vigilant and pursue their cases, and criticized the overindulgence shown towards the plaintiff in adjourning the case multiple times.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. Challenge is laid to the order dated 08.11.2016, passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC and Order 9 Rule 5 CPC.
2. The suit was filed in 2008 and the defendant was ordered to be summoned through registered cover on filing of Regd. AD and copy of plaint. The trial Court noted that the plaintiff failed to comply and the case was adjourned 16 times from 03.12.2008 up to 22.09.2011. Thereafter, no-one appeared for the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed in default on 03.10.2011. An application for restoration was filed 5 years later and the suit was restored. The Court was overindulgent. The plaintiff was granted one opportunity to get the service effected but he failed again to give the process fee/registered AD cover etc. The trial Court gave another opportunity but still the plaintiff failed to give the copy of the plaint. A detailed order was passed by the Court on 24.10.2016 giving three days further time and it was made clear that in case the order was not complied then the suit would be dismissed. On the adjourned hearing an application was filed seeking further adjournment. The trial Court considering the backdrop dismissed the suit and did not grant any further time.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length. I find no merit in the petition. The impugned order details the manner in which the trial Court has been accommodating the plaintiff adjourning the case again and again for four years only for filing the process fee/registered cover/copy of the plaint. The suit was dismissed in default in October 2011. Five years later in September 2016 the suit was restored and one last opportunity was granted for 06.10.2016 which again was not availed. The trial Court had been too lenient and had been adjourning the case. There is no place for litigants who refuse to come out of their slumber. The litigant has to be vigilant and expected to pursue his cases. The court is not a storehouse for negligent litigant. The son of the petitioner was the counsel of the petitioner. It is, therefore, more surprising how the suit progressed. Perhaps this is the reason why the Court was accommodating the lawyer as it was his mother's case. The Court can come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.
4. The petition is dismissed.
