Balwan Singh vs International Airport Authority ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6077 Del

$~4
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 130/2009
      BALWAN SINGH                                      ..... Plaintiff
                         Through:     Mr. Rajiv Yadav, Advocate

                         versus

      INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS
                                                   ..... Defendants
                  Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai & Mr. Syed Bin
                            Tahir, Advocates for defendant No.1
                            Mr. S.K. Pathak, Ms. Kumudini Kiran
                            Pathak, Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha & Mr.
                            Kushal Raj, Advocates for defendant
                            No.2

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                         ORDER

% 16.09.2016

1. The present case has been placed before the Court by the learned Joint Registrar, who has recorded in his order dated 19th July, 2016 that since the plaintiff had not led any evidence in the suit and his right was closed, the defendants have stated that they do not wish to lead any evidence.

2. A perusal of the order sheets reveals that the issues were framed in the suit on 2nd February, 2015 and the case was directed to be placed before the learned Joint Registrar on 23rd March, 2015 for recording of evidence. However, the plaintiff did not take any steps, either to file his list of witnesses or the affidavits by way of evidence.

3. On 23rd March, 2015, the learned Joint Registrar granted four weeks' time to the plaintiff to file his list of witnesses and the affidavit by way of evidence, subject to costs of Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within two weeks and the case was adjourned to 9 th July, 2015 for recording the plaintiff's evidence. Thereafter, neither the plaintiff, nor his counsel appeared in the suit on 9th July, 2015 and 5th October, 2015. Finally, vide order dated 9th July, 2015, the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for defendants' evidence.

4. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to challenge the orders dated 23rd March, 2015 and 9th July, 2015, by filing chamber appeals. Thereafter, on 22nd April, 2016, learned counsel for the plaintiff had appeared before the learned Joint Registrar and stated that he had filed an application for seeking recall of the order dated 9th July, 2015. The said application has yet to see the light of the day. Learned counsel for the defendants state that they have not even been served with a copy of the said application. It was for the plaintiff to have taken necessary steps to pursue the said application and have it listed.

5. The plaintiff is apparently not interested in pursuing the present suit. As a result, this Court has no option but to dismiss the suit for non- prosecution, in terms of Order XVII Rule 3 CPC.

6. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed.

HIMA KOHLI, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 tp/rkb