Delhi High Court
Alind Garg & Anr. vs Kundan Massey & Anr. on 1 July, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 01.07.2014
+ CM(M) 306/2014
ALIND GARG & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. B.K. Shahi, Adv.
versus
KUNDAN MASSEY & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
% MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)
This petition seeks setting aside of an order dated 27.11.2013 passed
by ADJ-I, whereby he dismissed the review application filed by the
petitioner against an order dated 5.2.2013 passed by ADJ-IV, South West
District, Dwarka Courts in Suit No.404/2012. On 5.2.2013, the Court noted
that despite several opportunities having been granted to the
petitioner/plaintiff, no evidence had been filed. Accordingly, his right to
lead evidence was closed. The case was then posted for leading of
defendant's evidence.
An application seeking a review of the said order under Section 114
CPC and another under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation
of the delay in filing the review application was filed. Both were dismissed
on the ground that issues were framed way-back on 14th February, 2011 and
thereafter, several opportunities were granted to the petitioners/plaintiffs to
lead evidence but were consistently in default all along. It was sought to be
explained by the petitioners' counsel that on the night prior to 5.2.2013,
there were heavy rains in Delhi; hence, the plaintiffs' witness could not
come for deposition. However, the Court took into account that the
plaintiffs' counsel's attendance/presence was marked on the said date and
they were duly conscious of the order of the closure of plaintiffs' evidence.
Furthermore, that he took more than 30 days in filing the review application
under Section 114 CPC. The only explanation offered was that the counsel
was busy in his other work. The Court found that this was not even a
sufficient explanation for condonation of delay in filing the review
application. Yet, in the larger interest, this delay was condoned.
However on merits of the application, the Trial Court was of the view
that as per the amendments, the CPC contemplates only three opportunities
for the entire trial but the plaintiffs had delayed the matter substantially and
had offered no reasonable explanation for the last default in leading
evidence. There being no error apparent on the face of the record, the
application under Section 114 CPC was accordingly dismissed.
This Court is unable to fathom any reasonable explanation at all as to
why the said application ought to be allowed. The Court fixed dates and
schedules ought not to be trifled with and have to be complied with.
Sanctity of Court orders has to be maintained. Repeated opportunities
before the Court are not for the asking. If the parties have a fresh chance to
lead evidence can be justified only in accompanying circumstances which
would show that the parties were constrained from complying with the Court
schedules. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show how the impugned
order suffers from material irregularity. The petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
JULY 01, 2014/ak
