Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar Aggarwal & Anr vs Reliance General Insurance Co. ... on 20 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 153/2019
% 20th February, 2019
VINOD KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate.
versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
RFA No. 153/2019 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 8169/2019 & 8172/2019
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit
impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 03.10.2018 by which
the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs
by noting that despite repeated opportunities, the plaintiffs' witness
failed to appear for cross-examination, and thus there being no
evidence led on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs, hence the
appellants/plaintiffs have failed to prove their case seeking rendition
of accounts against the respondent/defendant. By seeking rendition of
accounts the appellants/plaintiffs claimed moneys from the
respondent/defendant on account of having expanded the business of
the respondent/defendant.
2. The Order dated 03.10.2018 of the trial court closing the
evidence of the appellants/plaintiffs is also impugned in the present
appeal, and this order reads as under:
"CS NO 58152/2016
VINOD KR. AGGARWAL & ANR. V. RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
03.10.2018
Present: Sh. Akram Khan, ld. Counsel for plaintiffs along with
Sh. Ritesh Aggarwal (son of plaintiff).
Sh. Pankaj Kumar Thakur, ld. Counsel for defendant.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs requests for an adjournment on
the ground that he is on the panel of Delhi Legal Services
Authority but is looking after the cases pertaining to Magistrate
Courts only.
Receipt regarding the cost of Rs. 2,000/- deposited
in PMRF filed. It be taken on record.
Cost of Rs. 5,000/- which was imposed on 01.06.2018 has
not been paid. I have perused the previous ordersheets. Plaintiff is
taking the present case in a casual manner. The matter was fixed
for PE on 31.10.2014, 16.04.2015, 19.10.2015, 04.10.2016,
25.11.2016, 28.02.2017, 15.03.2017 and 30.08.2017. On
20.09.2018 last opportunity was granted to plaintiff to lead PE. No
cogent reason has been given for adjournment. Cost of Rs.
5,000/- has not been deposited. I am not inclined to grant
further adjournment in this matter. Hence, PE is closed. As plaintiff
has not led evidence in this case, DE is also closed.
Vide separate judgment, the suit of the plaintiffs is
dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance."
3. In my opinion, normally three opportunities are more
than enough for a party to appear, and such adjournments are granted
for appearing for cross-examination, but in this case various
opportunities for over three years were given for the appellants'/
plaintiffs' witness to appear for cross-examination but these
opportunities were not utilized, and therefore the trial court has rightly
held that it had no option but to close the evidence of the
appellants/plaintiffs. Once there is no evidence of the
appellants/plaintiffs, the suit had to be dismissed, and has rightly been
dismissed by the Impugned Judgment dated 03.10.2018.
4. In fact, I may note that the suit filed for the rendition of
accounts was also misconceived because the appellants/plaintiffs
ought to have filed a suit for recovery of moneys because the cause of
action in the plaint filed in the subject suit by the appellants/plaintiffs
was that the appellants/plaintiffs were to receive a percentage of
commission and professional charges payable for increasing the
business of the respondent/defendant. This amount necessarily had to
be a quantified amount but the appellants/plaintiffs to avoid paying
court fees, after valuing the suit for pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs.
21,00,000/- had only paid court fees of Rs. 200/-. Therefore, in fact
the suit itself was not properly framed, since court fees of Rs. 200/-
only was paid, thus also showing that obviously there was no
sufficient interest to effectively pursue the suit, and as rightly noted by
the trial court while closing the evidence of the appellants/plaintiffs in
terms of the Impugned Order dated 03.10.2018.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in
the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. All pending applications
are also disposed of accordingly.
FEBRUARY 20, 2019/AK VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
