The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to dismiss a suit for want of evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 of the C.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - In the present regular second appeal, challenge is to decree dated 01.03.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Sonepat, by which, the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. for want of evidence and an appeal filed against the said decree, was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide order dated 16.08.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though, there is a miss but he is not able to submit as to whether the appellants were at fault or somebody else, who was representing the appellants before the Court below. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the litigation should be decided on merits and therefore, order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellants as well as order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the lower Appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants against the said order, may kindly be set aside.

3. In the present appeal, it has come on record that issues were framed on 23.05.2018 and appellants-plaintiffs were directed to produce the evidence on 30.07.2018. Various opportunities were given to the appellants/plaintiffs on 05.09.2018, 20.10.2018 and 09.01.2019 to adduce the evidence but the same were not availed/encashed by the appellants/plaintiffs.

4. Thereafter, on the asking of the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs, another opportunity was given subject to payment of Rs.200/- as costs and the case was adjourned to 28.01.2019. Neither the cost was deposited nor opportunity was availed by the appellants-plaintiffs for leading evidence and the case was again adjourned on the asking of the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs so as to allow them another opportunity to pay cost and adduce evidence and case was adjourned to 27.02.2019.

5. On 27.02.2019, again neither cost was paid nor evidence was produced by the appellants-plaintiffs and case was adjourned to 01.03.2019. On 01.03.2019, none appeared on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs so as to inform whether the cost has been paid or they are ready to lead evidence. Faced with this situation, trial Court proceeded in a manner required for and evidence of the appellants-plaintiffs was closed by order dated 01.03.2019. Thereafter, as no evidence was led by the appellants-plaintiffs, defence counsel also did not lead any evidence and as there was nothing to rebut, the trial Court proceeded to decide the suit and dismissed the same vide order dated 01.03.2019, keeping in view the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 of the C.P.C for want of evidence.

6. Appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the order dated 01.03.2019, as no valid justification was given for defaults which occurred due to the acts of the appellants-plaintiffs, was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide order dated 16.08.2022 holding that no infirmity was brought to the notice of the lower Appellate Court qua passing of the order dated 01.03.2019 by the trial Court.

7. In the present appeal also learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any valid justification with regard to the conduct of the appellants-plaintiffs, which resulted in order dated 01.03.2019 as well as dismissal of their appeal vide order dated 16.08.2022 by the Courts below. Once, the appellants-plaintiffs have been given sufficient number of opportunities to lead evidence, there was no other option left with the trial Court but to decide the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs keeping in view the provisions of C.P.C. and the suit was rightly taken up for consideration, keeping in view the fact which have been narrated hereinbefore and the same was dismissed due to want of evidence keeping in view the provisions of Order 17, Rules 3 of the C.P.C.

8. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court in RSA No.699-2013 titled as Munish Kumar vs. Parveen Kumar decided on 06.05.2014 has held that keeping in vie