Delhi High Court
Dharam Singh (Since Deceased) And ... vs Mahinder Singh & Ors. on 18 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No.188/2012 and C.M. Nos.2848/2012 & 3184/2014
% 18th September, 2014
DHARAM SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) AND ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. V. Shukla, Advocate.
VERSUS
MAHINDER SINGH & ORS. ...... Respondents
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 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
petitioners who are legal heirs of the original plaintiff, and who were
impleaded as plaintiffs after the death of the original plaintiff, Sh. Dharam
Singh, impugn the order of the trial court dated 13.12.2011 by which the
trial court dismissed an application under Order XVIII Rule 2 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) whereby petitioners/plaintiffs were seeking to
lead further evidence on the ground that cross-examination of the original
plaintiff Sh. Dharam Singh was not completed and of which position they
were not aware because of the fact that Sh. Dharam Singh himself was
seriously sick leading to non-completion of his cross-examination.
2. A reading of the impugned order, as also the record of the trial
court, shows that the suit was filed by the original plaintiff way back in the
year 1981. Issues were framed in the year 1983 and again reframed in the
year 1986. Plaintiff was thereafter examined firstly in the year 1988 and in
spite of three opportunities taken for completing his examination-in-chief,
the same could not be completed. It was time and again deferred and in fact
continued till the year 2006 and ultimately plaintiff's evidence was closed on
24.4.2006. Thereafter the matter was listed for evidence of the defendants
and defendant's evidence was recorded and closed on 8.5.2008. The case
was at the stage of final arguments when the subject application, which has
been dismissed by the impugned order, was filed. Trial court notes that the
plaintiffs took almost 20 years to complete their evidence and ultimately the
evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 24.4.2006 and that final arguments
had also commenced and which were heard in part when the subject
application was filed.
3. It is clear that the original plaintiff, and thereafter the present
plaintiffs, are guilty of gross delay in the conduct of the suit. Surely, 20
years for recording of evidence, by no stretch of imagination, is a less
period. Also, the original plaintiff never during his lifetime asked for
completion of his cross-examination, and therefore the legal heirs of the
plaintiff cannot urge the ground of illness of the original plaintiff Sh.
Dharam Singh as a ground for additional evidence when Sh. Dharam Singh
himself never took up this ground. If in case such as the present, when a suit
is pending now for about 34 years, fresh evidence is allowed to be led, one
wonders that in which generation would the suit ever come to an end.
4. Dismissed. Interim order staying the proceedings in the suit is
vacated.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
