Smt. Dayawati & Ors. vs Shri Dalip Kumar
2012 Latest Caselaw 4466 Del

*      THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 CM(M) 833/2012 with CM 12654/2012(stay)

                                           Date of Decision: 27.07.2012

SMT. DAYAWATI & ORS.                                   ...... Petitioners
                 Through:              Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Adv.

                                 Versus

SHRI DALIP KUMAR                                      ...... Respondent
                          Through:     None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges order dated 01.04.2012 of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (ASCJ), Central, Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in suit No. 100/2006 filed against them by the respondent. Vide the impugned order their defence evidence was closed.

3. This order is assailed on the ground that their counsel was not well and his junior also did not take the required steps in preparing the defence evidence.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. It is noted that the suit was filed against the petitioners in the year 2006 and is still pending at the level of trial court. Though, the entire proceedings have not been produced, but, it is gathered that their evidence was closed on 07.02.2012 after repeated adjournments. The plea that their counsel was not well and that his junior had not prepared the evidence, is routine type of plea taken in such cases. It is not understandable as to what evidence was to be prepared by their counsel. Taking as it is stated by them that they had been approaching the counsel on number of occasions for preparing evidence, and he was putting off on one pretext or the other, the petitioners seem to have neither vigilance nor interestedness on their part to have made alternative arrangement, when they were already getting adjournments for number of dates. On 31.10.2011, they were directed to file affidavit of evidence within six weeks. Even thereafter, they sought repeated adjournments. Their conduct would further be seen from the fact that when the evidence was closed on 07.02.2012, the application for recalling the order was filed after about 2 months. So much so, even despite that the review application was dismissed on 04.04.2012, the instant petition is filed after more than three months in this Court. That would show the conduct and delaying attitude of the petitioners. When questioned, the learned counsel could not give any reason as to how this much delay occasioned in coming to this Court after the orders of dated 07.02.2012 and 04.04.2012 of the learned ADJ.

6. I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order calling for any intervention by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

JULY 27, 2012 awanish