Page No.# 1/6 vs On Death Of Debi Prasad More His ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 494 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010200832019




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : CRP(IO)/288/2019

         NABA DURGA CHARITABLE TRUST AND 2 ORS.
         REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI BINOD KUMAR MORE, AGED
         ABOUT 67YEARS

         2: SANTOSH KUMAR MORE
          SECRETARY
          SRI NABA DURGA CHARITABLE TRUST
          S/O LT. NAGARMAL MORE
          R/O A.T. ROAD
          KHUTIKOTIA
          MOUZA-TOWN
          P.O. HAIBARGAON
          P.S. SADAR
          DIST. NAGAON
         ASSAM
          PIN-782002

         3: BINOD KUMAR MORE
          S/O LT. NAGARMAL MORE
          R/O A.T. ROAD
          KHUTIKOTIA
          MOUZA-TOWN
          P.O. HAIBARGAON
          P.S. SADAR
          DIST. NAGAON
         ASSAM
          PIN-78200

         VERSUS

         ON DEATH OF DEBI PRASAD MORE HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ANR.
         ASSAM

         1.1:RATNI DEVI MORE
                             Page No.# 2/6

W/O LT. DEBI PRASAD MORE
R/O A.T.ROAD
KHUTIKOTIA
MOUZA- TOWN
P.O. HAIBORGAON
P.S. SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782002

1.2:RAVI MORE
 S/O LT. DEBI PRASAD MORE
 R/O A.T.ROAD
 KHUTIKOTIA
 MOUZA- TOWN
 P.O. HAIBORGAON
 P.S. SADAR
 DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
 PIN-782002

1.3:MADHU MITTAL
 D/O LT. DEBI PRASAD MORE
W/O SRI MUKESH MITTAL
 R/O A-50
 SHANTIPATH ROAD
 PATRAKAR COLONY
TILAK NAGAR
 JAIPUR
 RAJASTHAN
 PIN-302001

1.4:SUDHA MITTAL
 D/O LT. DEBI PRASAD MORE
W/O SRI MONISH MITTAL
 R/O 12F
 SHIV MOTI NAGAR
 NEMAVAR ROAD
 INDORE
 MADHYA PRASAD
 PIN-452005

2:PAWAN KUMAR MORE
 S/O LT. TARACHAND MORE
 R/O A.T. ROAD
 KHUTIKOTIA
 MOUZA-TOWN
 P.O. HAIBARGAON
                                                                          Page No.# 3/6

             P.S. SADAR
             DIST. NAGAON
             ASSAM
             PIN-78200

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. O P BHATI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. U K DAS (r-1.3)




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                          ORDER

Date : 14-02-2022

Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent.

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Nagaon in Title Suit No. 154/2007 is put to challenge.

The petitioners are the defendants in the suit before the learned trial court. They filed evidence of the second witness (DW-2), but on the date fixed for cross examination, the petitioner filed a petition stating that the said witness had gone to Sweden and accordingly an adjournment was prayed for. The learned trial court dismissed the said petition, primarily on the ground that the case has been pending since, 2017 for cross examination of the witnesses of the defendant's side and on the ground that the defendant had already taken multiple adjournments.

Today, the petitioner has filed several documents including Flight Tickets to establish that the DW-2, in fact had gone to Sweden to meet his Page No.# 4/6

daughter.

Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in State Bank of India Vs. KM. Chandra Govindji reported in (2000) 8 SCC 532 in order to buttress his argument. In paragraph-7 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed as under:

"In ascertaining whether a party had reasonable opportunity to put forward his case or not, one should not ordinarily go beyond the date on which adjournment is sought for. The earlier adjournments, if any, granted would certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable ground. The mere fact that in the past adjournments had been sought for would not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been rejected. Therefore, in our view, the High Court as well as the learned District Judge and the Rent Controller have all missed the essence of the matter."

On the other hand, Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the adjournment prayer was rightly rejected by the learned trial court. In support of his submission, he relied the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gayathri Vs. M. Girish reported in (2016) 14 SCC 142. In paragraphs-10, 11 & 13 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed as under:

"10. In the case at hand, as we have stated hereinbefore, the exami- nation-in- chief continued for long and the matter was adjourned seven times. The defendant sought adjournment after adjournment for cross-examination on some pretext or the other which are really not entertainable in law. But the trial Court eventually granted permis- sion subject to payment of costs. Regardless of the allowance ex- tended, the defendant stood embedded on his adamantine platform and prayed for adjournment as if it was his right to seek adjournment on any ground whatsoever and on any circumstance. The non-con- cern of the defendant-petitioner shown towards the proceedings of the Court is absolutely manifest. The disregard shown to the plaintiff's age is also visible from the marathon of interlocutory applications filed. A counsel appearing for a litigant Page No.# 5/6

has to have institutional re- sponsibility. The Code of Civil Procedure so command. Applications are not to be filed on the grounds which we have referred to herein- above and that too in such a brazen and obtrusive manner. It is wholly reprehensible. The law does not countenance it and, if we per- mit ourselves to say so, the professional ethics decries such practice. It is because such acts are against the majesty of law.

11. In this context, we may profitable reproduce a passage from Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd.3 wherein it has been stated that it is sad, but true, that the litigants seek -- and the courts grant --ad- journments at the drop of a hat. In the cases where the Judges are lit- tle proactive and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary ad- journments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. The court has further laid down that it is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and in- dulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further.

13. In the case at hand, it can indubitably be stated that the defendant- petitioner has acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation. We are constrained to say the virus of seeking adjournment has to be controlled. The saying of Gita "Awake! Arise! Oh Partha" is apt here to be stated for guidance of trial courts.

Today after hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, this court is of the opinion that there are several materials to believe that on the date fixed for cross examination of the defence witness, the DW-2 had in fact, gone to Sweden. The fact itself constitutes a sufficient ground as mentioned in Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This court is not concerned about the previous adjournments, which were allowed by the learned court below, but today, this court is satisfied that the prayer for adjournment made by the defendant/DW-2 should have been allowed by the learned trial court.

Under the aforesaid premised reasons, the prayer made by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2019 passed in T.S. No. 154/2007 pending in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Nagaon is Page No.# 6/6

set aside.

The defence witness/DW-2 shall appear before the learned trial court on 02.03.2022 to face cross examination. It is also directed that no adjournment shall be given to the defence witness on that day.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the revision petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant