The court upheld the dismissal of an application for delayed presentation of evidence, emphasizing due diligence and timeliness in legal proceedings.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, order dated

18.11.2019, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kangra, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 46/2008, has been assailed, whereby the application of the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

herein/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the month of September, 2019, with a prayer to place and prove on record certified copies of revision petition filed by the plaintiff on 13.10.2011, against order passed by ADM/Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala in case No. 23/07 on 06.08.2011. It was averred that the plaintiff being old, illiterate and sick lady had procured the certified copies of the revision petition and despite the exercise of due diligence could not provided it to her counsel.

3. Learned Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly, at the stage, when both the parties had already completed their evidence and the case was fixed for final arguments. Learned Trial Court also noticed that the revision petition allegedly had been filed in the year 2011. The suit was pending since 2008. The plea of due diligence as put forth by the plaintiff was, thus, disbelieved.

4. Having considered the submissions made at bar as also after going through the record, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. As per the case of the plaintiff, she had filed the revision petition in the year 2011, whereafter the proceedings in the suit continued for almost 8 years. The parties have led their evidence. Even if, the plaintiff had not been able to place on record certified copies of revision petition, such fact could have been ascertained from the defendants while cross-examining them. The prayer made in the application does not appear to be bonafide.

5. In result, there is no illegality or perversity with the impugned order. Hence, the instant petition is dismissed.