Ajay Kumar Sharma vs Rajesh Kumar Sharma
2014 Latest Caselaw 4194 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CM(M) No. 1363/2013

%                                              5th September, 2014

AJAY KUMAR SHARMA                                         ......Petitioner
                Through:                 Ms. Kiran Sharma, Adv.


                          VERSUS

RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA                                         ...... Respondent
                 Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

petitioner/plaintiff impugns the order of the trial court dated 24.8.2013

which has closed the petitioner/plaintiff's evidence.


2.    Before I turn to the facts of the present case, I must note the cursory

and casual manner in which the present petition is filed. The impugned

order closes the right to lead evidence by the petitioner/plaintiff, however,

no earlier orders are filed for this Court to know that how many

opportunities were granted. Not only the ordersheets are not filed, even the


CMM1363/2013                                                                    Page 1 of 3
 pleadings in the suit are not filed for this Court to appreciate what are the

issues involved and it is only known that the suit is a suit for recovery of

Rs.2,45,000/- because of the two dates which are mentioned in the list of

dates. I fail to understand how in such a perfunctory manner petitions can be

filed.


3.       Since the impugned order dated 24.8.2013 did not mention the earlier

opportunities which were granted to the petitioner/plaintiff, I asked the

counsel for the petitioner that how many opportunities petitioner/plaintiff

had got to lead evidence and to which the reply was that three opportunities

were granted. On a query as to where are the earlier ordersheets, counsel

states that the ordersheets are in hand and therefore, could not be filed and

therefore, this Court asked the counsel to read the ordersheets. The last order

before the impugned order dated 24.8.2013 was passed is the order dated

18.7.2013, and which order when read shows that not three but in fact five

opportunities were granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence but

were not availed of. Therefore, the earlier statement by the counsel for the

petitioner to this Court that only three opportunities were granted to the

petitioner to lead evidence was not a correct statement. This Court does not

appreciate this type of a wrong statement of the counsel, more so in a

CMM1363/2013                                                                Page 2 of 3
 petition filed in a perfunctory manner without any ordersheets or pleadings

of the courts below.


4.    There is no interminable entitlement to keep on seeking adjournments,

and once it is clear that adjournments have been repeatedly sought and were

granted to lead evidence but were not utilized, the trial court was thereafter

justified in passing the impugned order dated 24.8.2013 closing the right of

the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence.


             Dismissed.




SEPTEMBER 05, 2014                           VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib