Delhi High Court
Tirupati Alkalies Pvt Ltd vs Vinod Trivedi on 16 August, 2017
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 550/2017 & CM No.28959/2017 (of the petitioner for early
hearing)
TIRUPATI ALKALIES PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Goel, Adv.
Versus
VINOD TRIVEDI ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 16.08.2017
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns
the order [dated 27th April, 2017 in Civil Suit No.7995/2016 of the Court of
Additional District Judge (ADJ)-01, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi]
of dismissal of applications under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and under
Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC.
2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof ordered to be issued
for 25th July, 2017.
3. The matter could not be taken up on 25th July, 2017 owing to paucity
of time and has been adjourned to 6th February, 2018.
4. CM No.28959/2017 has been filed for early hearing on the ground that
the matter is listed today before the Trial Court and has been adjourned to 9th
September, 2017.
5. The learned ADJ, vide the impugned order, after dismissing the
applications, posted the suit for evidence of the petitioner / defendant on 3 rd
May, 2017.
6. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner / defendant the
proceedings of 3rd May, 2017 and thereafter. The counsel for the petitioner /
defendant states that adjournments are being taken till now owing to the
pendency of this petition.
7. This petition though was accompanied with an application for interim
stay, no interim stay was granted of stay of proceedings before the Trial
Court while issuing notice thereof. The meaning of refusal of stay is that
petitioner / defendant is not to take adjournment before the Trial Court on
account of pendency of this petition. However it is found that inspite of this
Court having not granted stay of proceedings before the Trial Court, the
parties continue to seek adjournment before the Trial Court on account of
pendency of petitions before this Court and which conduct has in the order
dated 26th July, 2017 in CM(M) No.624/2017 titled Ramakant Kaushik Vs.
Pawan Sharma and in the order dated 8th August, 2017 in CM(M)
No.474/2017 titled Vinay Kumar Vs. Bijay Kumar been held to be
contumacious.
8. The petitioner / defendant is found to have indulged in the same
conduct and this petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
9. Be that as it may, the counsel for the petitioner / defendant has been
asked to argue the petition today itself.
10. CM No.28959/2017 is allowed in terms thereof.
11. The counsel for the petitioner / defendant has contended that "he is
only seeking one more opportunity to prove the documents which were
sought to be filed at the stage of petitioner/defendant‟s evidence and the suit
was pending in mediation for 7/8 years."
12. The learned ADJ, in the impugned order, has observed that the suit is
of the year 1996.
13. The National Court Management System Committee of the Supreme
Court and the State Court Management System Committee of this Court
have issued directions for disposal of suits over ten years old in time bound
manner. Such directions cannot be expected to be abided by the Trial Courts
if this Court, in the name of "indulgence" and "in the interest of justice"
continues to interfere with the orders of the Trial Court refusing to grant
opportunities for which sufficient time had already been availed and which
are otherwise justified on merits.
14. The learned ADJ in the impugned order also has observed that no
reason had been given for not filing the documents, all of which were of
dates prior to the institution or shortly after the institution of the suit.
15. The only reason given by the counsel for the petitioner / defendant
was of blaming the earlier lawyer and the counsel for the petitioner /
defendant today also raises the same arguments.
16. The said grounds cannot be permitted to be taken any longer when
litigants are not illiterate persons but are corporates and are spending
substantial amount of monies in litigation and have deputed officials to
pursue the litigation. An advocate, as has been held by me recently in order
dated 25th July, 2017 in CM(M) No.768/2017 titled Bimla Vs. Sirajuddin,
remains an agent of the litigant and no unlimited indulgence can be granted
on such account.
17. No error is thus found in the reasoning given by the learned ADJ.
Allowing the petitioner / defendant to at this stage introduce new documents
would also result in granting an opportunity to the respondent / plaintiff to
lead further evidence, thereby endlessly delaying the trial.
18. Though the counsel for the petitioner / defendant has not argued
anything with respect to the dismissal of the application under Order XII
Rule 6 of the CPC but the dismissal of the suit sought on the basis of cross-
examination of the respondent / plaintiff has also been rightly declined by
the learned ADJ.
19. In fact, the counsel for the petitioner / defendant states that he is not
even challenging the dismissal of the application under Order XII Rule 6 of
the CPC.
20. No ground for interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is made out.
Dismissed.
No costs.
21. The date of 6th February, 2018 earlier given is cancelled.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AUGUST 16, 2017
„gsr‟..
