Delhi High Court
Smt. Hajri Devi vs Smt. Farida Begum & Ors. on 22 December, 2014
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 675/2013 & C.M.Nos.10134/2013 (Stay), 10135/2013
(Condonation)
22nd December, 2014
SMT. HAJRI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.P.K.Nayyar, Advocate.
versus
SMT. FARIDA BEGUM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M.No.21047/2014
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
C.M.No.21046/2014
1. (i) The main petition being CM(M) No.675/2013 was disposed of by
a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 31.10.2013. In
the main petition, the petitioner/applicant had impugned the order of the
trial court dated 16.7.2012 closing the right of the
petitioner/applicant/plaintiff to lead evidence on account of non-payment
of cost of Rs.1,000/-.
(ii) By the judgment dated 31.10.2013 passed by a learned Single
Judge of this Court, a period of six weeks was given to the petitioner to
pay total costs of Rs.3,000/- for leading evidence including filing of
supplementary affidavit and original documents. The operative paras of
the judgment dated 31.10.2013 are paras 4, 5 & 6, and which read as
under:
" 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of
the view that one final opportunity in the matter has to be given
to be petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of the
present case. The petitioner is directed to pay the previous cost
of Rs.1000/- to the respondents within six weeks from today.
5. The petitioner is also allowed to file the supplementary
affidavit along with the original documents during the said
period, subject to further cost of Rs.2000/-. Parties shall appear
before the learned trial court on 20th February, 2014 for fixing
the date for cross-examination of the petitioner.
6. The present petition is disposed of with the above mentioned
direction. Pleading applications are also disposed of."
2. Now by this application, the petitioner/applicant is seeking further
extension of time on the ground that till the subject order dated
18.10.2014, which is passed by the trial court holding that the time of six
weeks granted by this Court on 31.10.2013 cannot be extended, the
petitioner/applicant did not know of the contents of the judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this Court dated 31.10.2013. Effectively, the
costs and the affidavit which were to be paid/filed within six weeks in
terms of the judgment dated 31.10.2013, were paid/tendered and filed
after about 50 weeks.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant argues that he was
suffering from Hernia and therefore he did not come to know of the
judgment of this Court dated 31.10.2013 till 18.10.2014, and therefore
the time be extended.
4. I am unable to agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the
petitioner/applicant inasmuch as it is not conceivable as to how a
judgment of this Court dated 31.10.2013 would not be in the knowledge
of the petitioner/applicant for one year till October 2014 inasmuch as the
judgments passed by judges of this Court are duly shown in the website
of this Court which is accessible 24 X 7 and 365 days of the year. I
therefore cannot agree with the statement that for one year, the
petitioner/applicant did not know of the judgment of a learned Single
Judge of this Court dated 31.10.2013, and therefore direction with respect
to payment of costs and filing of supplementary affidavit with original
documents could not be complied with.
5. I may note that even by the judgment dated 31.10.2013, a last
opportunity was granted to the petitioner/applicant who was already
guilty of default and her evidence was closed by the order dated
16.7.2012 of the trial court which was impugned in the main petition, and
therefore a period of six weeks cannot be enlarged to a period of as many
as 50 weeks.
6. I put it to the counsel for the petitioner that as to whether he has
never appeared in any court since November 2013 on account of 'Hernia'
and to which counsel for the petitioner states that he did appear in limited
number of cases, but he was not well, therefore he remained mostly in
chamber. In view of the above, I cannot accept the above reason of
illness on account of 'Hernia' that the judgment of a learned Single Judge
of this Court dated 31.10.2013 did not come to be known by the
petitioner/applicant for a period of as much as one year no less.
7. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 22, 2014
KA
