Delhi High Court
Vijay Sareen vs Daewoo Motors India Ltd. on 22 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.394/2001
% 22nd February, 2011
VIJAY SAREEN ...... Appellant
Through: None
VERSUS
DAEWOO MOTORS INDIA LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This matter is on the Regular Board of this Court since 3.1.2011.
Today, this matter is effective item no.6 on Regular Board. None appears for
the appellant and it is 12:30 pm. I have therefore perused the record and
am proceeding to dispose of the matter.
2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment
and decree dated 2.5.2001 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for
recovery of damages of Rs.2,26,400/- was dismissed by the Trial Court, and
RFA No.394/2001 Page 1 of 4
which damages were claimed by the appellant/plaintiff for alleged illegal
detention of a petroleum tanker of the appellant/plaintiff by the
respondent/defendant.
3. The defence of the respondent/defendant in the Trial Court was
that the appellant/plaintiff was guilty of theft of petroleum products because
in the tanker, another chamber had been made whereby, the entire contents
of the tanker were not being off-loaded at the premises of the respondent,
and which would not have come to light, except by sheer chance of the
security staff of the respondent/defendant noticing that the diesel was
leaking from the outlet pipe of the tanker and which doubt resulted in an
inspection and it was found that one chamber of the tanker was full of diesel.
4. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed because
the plaintiff did not turn up for cross-examination in spite of various
opportunities, and therefore, there being no evidence on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff, the suit was dismissed.
5. It has been contended in memo of appeal that the adjournments
were earlier taken for compromise and otherwise on genuine grounds and
therefore the Trial Court was not justified in closing the evidence vide order
dated 2.5.2001. In order to appreciate this argument, it is necessary to
reproduce the order sheets from 29.8.2000 to 2.5.2001 and which read as
under:-
RFA No.394/2001 Page 2 of 4
"29.8.2000: Present: Proxy counsels for the parties.
No P.E. present. Date requested.
In the interest of justice last opportunity for P.E. on
11.10.2000.
17.11.2000:Present: Counsels for the parties.
No P.E. present. Date requested. Not opposed.
In the interest of justice last opportunity for P.E. on
2.1.2001.
3.1.2001: Present: As before.
File taken up today as 2.1.2001 was declared a
holiday.
No P.E. present. Another date requested. Not
opposed.
In the interest of justice last opportunity for P.E. on
12.2.2001.
21.3.2001: Present: Counsels for the parties.
No P.E. present. An application for adjournment filed,
on the ground that PW-1 (pltf's mother) is to be operated for
Cataract today. On this ground adjournment not opposed.
In the interest of justice last opportunity for P.E. on
2.5.2001.
2.5.2001: Present: Counsels for the parties.
No P.E. present. Even PW.1 is not present for his
cross-examination and date requested for P.E. Adjournment
strongly opposed. Today it is last opportunity for P.E. No
steps taken. It was last opportunity even for 12.11.2000. As
such there is no justification for adjournment of the matter
for P.E. Hence, P.E. close. Ld. counsel for defendant
Sh.S.K.Choudhary Adv. made a statement recorded
separately. In view of the closure of the evidence of the
plaintiff he does not want to lead evidence on behalf of the
defendant. Arguments heard. Vide my separate judgment
of even date, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no
order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and
file be consigned to the R.R."
RFA No.394/2001 Page 3 of 4
6. The aforesaid order sheets reproduced show that no evidence
was led on 29.8.2000, 17.11.2000, 3.1.2001, 21.3.2001 and finally on
2.5.2001. In the facts of the present case, therefore, I do not find any
illegality or perversity of the Trial Court in closing the evidence of the
plaintiff as per its order dated 2.5.2001.
7. Since there was no evidence on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff
before the Trial Court, the suit has been rightly dismissed. I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree which calls for
interference by this Court in appeal. The appeal, being misconceived, is
therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 22, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
