Delhi High Court
Sh. Kawaljeet Singh Ahuja vs Sh. Sukhdev Singh Ahuja on 2 December, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
C.M.(M) No.1065 /2014 and C.M.Nos.19808/2014 (stay) & 19809/2014
(Exemption)
% 02nd December, 2014
SH. KAWALJEET SINGH AHUJA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate.
VERSUS
SH. SUKHDEV SINGH AHUJA ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns
the orders of the trial court dated 12.11.2014 and 26.8.2014 by which the
trial court has closed the evidence of the petitioner/defendant and has fixed
the case for final arguments.
2. The respondent/plaintiff is the father of the petitioner/defendant and is
today about 90 years of age. The subject suit was filed by the
respondent/plaintiff/father about four years back seeking possession of the
suit property being the second floor of property no.33/7, Old Rajinder
Nagar, New Delhi-60.
3. The impugned orders show that the petitioner/defendant got repeated
opportunities to lead evidence, but he did not lead evidence and ultimately
the court was forced to close the evidence as evidence was not led inspite of
categorically specifying that the last and final opportunity is given, and in
fact costs were also earlier imposed.
4. No doubt, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a handmaid of
justice and courts have to consider grant of time liberally, however, in civil
cases surely about 2-3 opportunities are sufficient to complete the evidence,
and in any case about 4-5 opportunities are definitely enough. In the present
case, the petitioner/defendant did not utilize the various opportunities being
first on 28.2.2014, second on 01.4.2014, third on 05.5.2014, fourth on
26.7.2014 and fifth on 26.8.2014 when the impugned order was passed
closing the evidence of the petitioner/defendant.
5. While adjourning the case on 01.4.2014, the petitioner/defendant was
allowed an opportunity subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,200/-, but on the
next date i.e 05.5.2014, neither costs were paid nor evidence was led on
behalf of the petitioner/defendant. Therefore while adjourning the case on
05.5.2014, the trial court made it clear that last and final opportunity is
granted to the petitioner/defendant to lead his entire evidence and the same
was with further costs of Rs.1,500/-.
6. The order dated 26.7.2014 records that once again neither the
witnesses of the petitioner/defendant were present nor was the cost of
Rs.1,500/- paid. The trial court records that the respondent/plaintiff is a
senior citizen aged about 88 years. Again using the expression 'last and
final opportunity', the petitioner/defendant was given opportunity to lead his
evidence on 26.8.2014 subject to further costs of Rs.1,000/-. Ultimately on
26.8.2014 after giving repeated 'last opportunities' and noting that entire
costs are not paid, the trial court was forced to close the evidence.
7. I find absolutely no reason to interfere in exercise of the discretionary
and extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India because it is clear that the persons such as the petitioner/defendant
should not feel that there is an inherent right to keep on delaying a case,
more so of his own father who has sued him for possession of the suit
property.
8. I have already noted above, various 'last opportunities' were given,
though the expression 'last opportunity' is meant to be the last only, but the
petitioner/defendant obviously was not wiser. Also as stated above, part of
the costs was also not paid. Therefore to a recalcitrant litigant such as the
petitioner/defendant, no indulgence can be shown by this Court.
9. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is
therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 02, 2014
KA
