IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. L. YADAV
SURYABALI - Appellant
Versus
VI ADDITIONAL DIST.JUDGE, DEORIA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 9631 Of 1988
Decided On : 10/31/1988
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 17, RULES 1, 2 AND 3 - INTERPRETATION - ADJOURNMENT - REFUSAL TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT TO THE DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE - MANIFESTLY ERRONEOUS AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application for time to file objection on the report of the Commissioner. The application was dismissed and the parties were directed to produce evidence forthwith. The petitioner filed an application to recall the order, which was also rejected. The petitioner challenged these orders in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the refusal to grant adjournment to the defendant was unjust and unfair. The court also held that the Munsif did not follow any specific provision or indicate under which rule of Order 17 he was passing the order.
Issues: Whether the refusal to grant adjournment to the defendant was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure have to be interpreted with a view to advance substantial justice. The court also held that the principles of natural justice require that a party must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders. The parties were directed to appear before the Munsif on a specified date. The Munsif was directed to grant short adjournments to consider the objection of the defendant on the report of the Commissioner and to produce evidence. The Munsif was directed to dispose of the suit by a specified date.
( 1 ) BY the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the impugned order dated 21-4-88 passed by the Additional District Judge, rejecting the Civil Revision of the petitioner, and the orders dared 24-2-87 and 9-3-87 are sought to be quashed.
( 2 ) IT appears that an application was filed on 17-9-81 (Annexure-1 to the petition) that the defendant may be given time to file objection on the report of the Commissioner. That application was dismissed by order dated 24-2-87 (Annexure-3) and the parties were directed to produce evidence forthwith. The petitioner filed an application to recall the order dated 24-2-87 and that application was rejected by order dated 9-3-87. Against these orders the present petition has been filed.
( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The operative portion of the order dated 24-2-87 is set our below :"the application 183d is rejected for the above reason. The parties to produce evidence forthwith. The defendants are not adducing any evidence. Put up at 1. 15 p. m. for further orders. "when the case was again called out at 1. 15 p. m. the following order was passed :"case called out. Counsel for the plaintiff present. None is present for the defendant despite of earlier calls. The evidence of the defendant is closed. Fix 9-3-87 for the arguments of the paties, if any. "
( 4 ) THE learned Munsif passed the order directing the parties to produce evidence on the same date (24-2-87) and on the same date the case was again called out. As the defendant was not present, the evidence was closed. No opportunity to the defendant was given by fixing some other date to produce evidence. Under O. 17, R. 3 of the C. P. C. (for short the Code) the provision is that where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default (a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith; or (b) if the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under R. 2.
( 5 ) A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would indicate, that the time must be granted on a particular date and at subsequent date, may be a short date, according to the requirement of the case, or in other cases it may be a long date. If a particular party has failed to produce his evidence or to perform any other act, the Court may pass an order appropriate to the requirement in the case, but in the present case it appears that the provisions of R. 3 were not noticed and on the same date it was directed that the defendant shall produce evidence and when the case was called out at 1. 15 p. m. , it was directed that as the defendant was not present, hence the evidence was closed. The procedure for closing evidence of the defendant on the same date without granting time does not appear to be justified.
( 6 ) IT is the elementary rule of interpretation that the procedural law has to be interpreted with a view to advance substantial justice. Order 17 of the Code commences with the heading adjournment. Rules 1, 2 and 3 have to be interpreted keeping in view that the Parliament has confined O. 17 particularly to granting adjournments, refusing the same and the consequences emanating therefrom. Sub-rule (1) of R. 1 of O. 17 is to the effect that if sufficient case is shown at any stage of the suit, the Court shall have the power to grant time to the parties, and from time to time the court may adjourn the hearing of the suit. This sub-rule gives unfettered discretion to the Court to grant appropriate, adjournments at any stage. Sub-rule (2) is about the cost of adjournment. Rule 2 applies to the cases of default in appearance of the parties on the date to which hearing of the suit is adjourned. In case the party failed to appear the Court may dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed u
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.