Shyamnath Sharma vs Kripal Singh Bedi
2022 Latest Caselaw 4073 MP

                               1
                                                  M.P.No.4962/2018



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH


                  Misc. Petition No.4962/2018
Between :
SHYAMNATH SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O SHRI
S.N.SHARMA,    OCCUPATION-
BUSINESS,R/O E-5, 137, ARERA
COLONY, BHOPAL.
                                 ..... PETITIONERS
(SHRI R K VERMA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SHRI
ASHISH DATTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)

AND

1.  KRIPAL SINGH BEDI S/O
SUMER SINGH BEDI , AGED
ABOUT    46  YEARS,   R/O
NARSINGHPUR         ROAD,
CHHINDWARA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)

2.    SMT. SANGEETA PURI
W/O VINOD PURI , AGED
ABOUT     40    YEARS,  R/O
SURAJGANJ      ITARSI  TAH.
ITARSI DISTT. HOSHANGABAD
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.  STATE  OF    MADHYA
PRADESH         THROUGH
COLLECTOR, DISTT BHOPAL
MP BHOPAL MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)

4.   BAL KRISHNA SHUKLA
SINCE DECEASED THROUGH
LRS. SMT. VIDYA SHUKLA W/O
LATE BAL KRISHNNA SHUKLA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O
D-BLOCK, SHANTI ENCLAVE,
                          2
                             M.P.No.4962/2018




CHUNA BHATTI KOLAR ROAD
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.  SMT. VIDYA SHUKLA W/O
LATE     BAL     KRISHNNA
SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 70
YEARS, R/O D-BLOCK, SHANTI
ENCLAVE, CHUNA BHATTI
KOLAR     ROAD     BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

6.  ANUP SHUKLA S/O LATE
BAL KRISHNNA SHUKLA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O
D-BLOCK, SHANTI ENCLAVE,
CHUNA BHATTI KOLAR ROAD
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.  KU. MANJU SHUKLA D/O
LATE     BAL     KRISHNNA
SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, R/O D-BLOCK, SHANTI
ENCLAVE, CHUNA BHATTI
KOLAR     ROAD     BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

8.  ARCHANA MISHRA @
ARCHANA SHUKLA D/O LATE
BAL KRISHNNA SHUKLA R/O
D-BLOCK, SHANTI ENCLAVE,
CHUNA BHATTI KOLAR ROAD
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

9.  ARVIND SHUKLA S/O
LATE BAL KRISHNNA SHUKLA
R/O    D-BLOCK,    SHANTI
ENCLAVE, CHUNA BHATTI
KOLAR     ROAD    BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

10. SMT. VANDANA SHARMA
@ DEEPAK S/O LATE BAL
KRISHNNA SHUKLA R/O D-
BLOCK, SHANTI ENCLAVE,
                                                       3
                                                                                             M.P.No.4962/2018




CHUNA BHATTI KOLAR ROAD
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

11. RAVINDRA SHUKLA @
DEEPAK   S/O  LATE  BAL
KRISHNNA SHUKLA R/O D-
BLOCK, SHANTI ENCLAVE,
CHUNA BHATTI KOLAR ROAD
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

12. RAJESH BAGHWAN S/O
B.G. BAGHWAN , AGED ABOUT
40    YEARS,    R/O  C321,
SHAHPUR, DISTT. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

13. SMT. PUSHPA TIWARI
W/O    LATE     SHYAMLAL
TIWARI , AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, R/O E-109/7, SHIVAJI
NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

14. SANJAY PALIWAL S/O
MAHENDRA PALIWAL , AGED
ABOUT   34  YEARS,   R/O
SEHORE, DISTRICT SEHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                   ...... RESPONDENTS

(SHRI ASHISH SHROTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
No.1, 2 & RESPONDENT No.13 namely Smt. Pushpa Tiwari)

SHRI          SIDDHARTH                       SHARMA,                  ADVOCATE                      FOR
RESPONDENT No.12-Rajesh Baghwan)
..............................................................................................................
       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following :
                                             ORDER

(24.03.2022) The grievance of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the trial Court has closed his right to produce evidence vide order dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure P/8).

M.P.No.4962/2018

2. The facts reflect that the petitioner filed a suit in the year 2006 seeking injunction against the respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit property. He concluded his evidence in the year 2011 but thereafter started filing interim applications at certain intervals. He filed 3-4 applications for taking additional documents on record. The last of them was considered and dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2018 which is under challenge in M.P. No.4705/2018. After the dismissal of that application, some more opportunities were granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence with a cogent warning that since the case pertains to the year 2006 and there are directions of the High Court to conclude such cases at the earliest, no further adjournment shall be granted. The trial Court repeatedly granted the last opportunity to adduce evidence with the aforesaid warning but the petitioner never bothered or honoured them. Ultimately, the trial Court refused to grant more opportunities and closed his right to adduce evidence.

3. The grounds urged by the petitioner are that he sought permission to produce some additional documents and was hopeful that the trial Court ought to allow that application and if his application would be allowed, he would adduce his evidence. He was ready to do so but since the application was rejected, and he challenged that order, no evidence could be adduced by him. It is further averred that while returning back to Bhopal, the petitioner fell sick on account of viral infection, therefore, he could not appear or produce his witnesses before the Court. A medical certificate was annexed along with the application, therefore, the trial Court should have believed upon the statement made by him. The absence of the petitioner was not willful whereas it was on account of his sickness which was beyond his control. The petitioner had already led the

M.P.No.4962/2018

evidence and wanted to examine witnesses only with regard to the documents which were relevant and were sought to be produced by him, therefore, no prejudice was likely to cause to the other side, if the documents would have been taken on record and the petitioner would have been granted an opportunity to prove them.

4. It is further submitted that the High Court has entertained his petition being Misc. Petition No.4705/2018 against the order dated 19.09.2018, whereby, the trial Court refused to take the additional documents on record and has also granted a stay. Therefore, the trial Court should not have closed his right.

5. It is requested that if a single opportunity is granted, the petitioner will adduce evidence. The right to close the evidence would amount to denying a party to seek justice as a great prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner, therefore, it is prayed to set- aside the impugned order and grant opportunity to the petitioner to adduce the evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the order impugned and the proceedings of the trial Court placed on record by him and submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is lacking bonafide and disentitles him to get any relief as sought for.

7. While dismissing the application for adjournment or to grant some more time to the petitioner to adduce evidence, the trial Court observed that the suit filed by the petitioner himself was pending since 2006 and there was a direction of the High Court to conclude the same as early as possible. Sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence. On the last date of hearing i.e. 10.08.2018 also, the petitioner did not produce evidence instead obtained adjournment by filing a medical certificate. Again on the next date of hearing, a similar prayer was made and allowed but even

M.P.No.4962/2018

thereafter, instead of producing evidence, he filed an application for taking additional documents on record. This application was dismissed and even after dismissal of this application, a last opportunity was granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to produce evidence but instead, he again filed an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC for seeking adjournment.

8. The ld. trial Court further observed that all six witnesses have already been examined by the petitioner and that the application for adjournment has been filed only to cause delay and dismissed the application.

9. The proceedings referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents further reflect that the entire evidence of the petitioner was completed in the year 2011 and since then several applications were filed by the petitioner which delayed the trial.

10. For the sake of convenience, I would like to refer to the relevant parts of the orders of the trial Court:

**10-01-18

--- vr% oknh dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ftl lk{kh ls nLrkost iznf'kZr fd;k tkuk gS vkxkeh is'kh ij mls U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr j[ksA vU;Fkk oknh dks fn;k x;k mDr lk{; dk volj lekIr dj fn;k tk;sxkA lkFk gh izfroknh dks Hkh funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd pwafd izdj.k o"kZ 2006 dk gS] 10 o"kZ ls vf/kd iqjkuk gks pqdk gS og Hkh vius lkf{k;ksa dks vko';d :i ls mifLFkr j[ksA izdj.k [email protected] lk{; gsrq fnukWad [email protected]@2018 dks is'k gksA 17-01-18

--- oknh }kjk vkosnu varfje vkns'k 17 fu-1 CPC is'k dj le;

pkgk U;k;fgr esa le; fn;kA izdj.k [email protected] }kjk lk{; izLrqrh gsrq fu;r fnukad [email protected]@18 dks is'k gksA 31-01-18

--- izdj.k [email protected] dh lk{; gsrq fu;rA oknh }kjk lk{; gsrq le; pkgk U;k;fgr esa le; fn;kA izdj.k [email protected] lk{; gsrq [email protected]@18 dks is'k gksA

M.P.No.4962/2018

15-02-18

--- izdj.k [email protected] lk{; gsrq fu;r lk{kh vuqifLFkrA oknh dh vksj ls vkosnu vk0 7 fu;e 14 CPC vkosnu vkns'k 06 fu-18 CPC dk is'k fd;kA izfr;ka] izfroknhx.k nh x;hA izdj.k mDr vkosnu i= ij [email protected] gsrq fnukad [email protected]@2018 dks is'k gksA 27-02-18 --- ihBklhu vf/kdkjh LFkkukUrfjr 14-03-18 --- ihBklhu vf/kdkjh LFkkukUrfjr 28-03-18 --- ihBklhu vf/kdkjh LFkkukUrfjr 11-04-18 --- ihBklhu vf/kdkjh LFkkukUrfjr

01-05-18

--- izdj.k oknh lk{; gsrq fu;r fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k oknh lk{; gsrq fnukWad [email protected]@2018 dks is'k gksA 15-05-18

--- izdj.k lquokbZ ,ao tokc rdZ gsrq fnukWd [email protected]@2018 dks is'k gksA 26-06-18 ---

28-06-18 ---

--- izdj.k fnukad 08-12-06 ls bl U;k;ky; ds le{k yafcr gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj izdj.k dk 'kh?kz fujkdj.k fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA vr% mHk; i{k dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh is'kh fnukad dks izkr% 11 cts U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj vkbZ-,-u- [email protected] o [email protected] ij rdZ izLrqr djsA izdj.k vkbZ-,-u- [email protected] o [email protected] ij rdZ gsrq fnukad 07-07-18 dks is'k gksA

07-07-18

--- izdj.k vkbZ-,-u- 1 ,oa 2 ij rdZ ,oa I.A. 3/18 ds tokc gsrq fnukad [email protected]@18 dks is'k gksA

18-07-18

--- --- ---

izdj.k esa vkxkeh is'kh fnukad dks oknh vkosnu i= vkbZ-,-u- [email protected] dk tokc vko';d :i ls izLrqr djsaA bl izØe ij oknh dh vksj ls ,d vkosnu i= varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 14 lhihlh izLrqr fd;k x;kA mDr vkosnu i= ij vkbZ-,-u- [email protected] vafdr fd;k x;kA mDr vkosnu i= dh udy izfroknhx.k ds vf/koDrkx.k dks iznku dh xbZA tokc gsrq le; pkgk] okn fopkj le;k fn;k x;kA izdj.k vkbZ-,-u- [email protected] o [email protected] ds tokc gsrq fnukad [email protected]@18 dks is'k gksA

M.P.No.4962/2018

26-07-18

--- --- ---

izdj.k oknh lk{; gsrq fu;r fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA izdj.k esa oknh dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh is'kh fnukad dks viuh leLr lk{khx.k dks U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr j[ksA mifLFkr izfroknhx.k dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr lk{khx.k ds izfrijh{k.k gsrq rRij jgsaA izdj.k oknh lk{; gsrq fnukad 10-08-18 dks is'k gksA

10-08-18

--- blh izØe ij ,d vkosnu i= varxZr vkns'k 17 fu;e 1 lhihlh dk is'k fd;k x;kA vkosnu i= la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k oknh lk{; gsrq fu;r gSA oknh dk LokLF; [kjkc gksus ds dkj.k og vkt U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj lk{; dks nsus esa vleFkZ gSa] bl laca/k esa esMhdy lfVZfQdsV orZeku vkosnu i= ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gSA oknh dh vuqifLFkfr ,oa ifjfLFkrtU; gSA vr% fuosnu gS fd izdj.k esa vkTk dh frfFk c<kbZ tkdj izdj.k dks vU; fdlh frfFk gsrq fu;r fd;k tkosA izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k esa oknh }kjk okn i= esa mYysf[kr fooknxzLr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh lgk;rk izkIr djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k oknh lk{; gsrq fu;r gSA izdj.k fnukad 08-12- 06 dks lafLFkr gksdj yxHkx 12 o"kZ ls bl U;k;ky; ds le{k yafcr gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj izdj.k dks 'kh?kz fujkdj.k fd;k tkuk vfr vko';d gSA izdj.k esa mDr vkosnu i= ds lkFk izLrqr oknh ds esfMdy izek.k i= esa oknh fdl dkj.k ls chekj gS bl ckr dk Li"V mYys[k ugha gS ijarq mDr esfMdy izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij oknh dks oknh lk{; izLrqr djus gsrq iqu% ,d volj fn;k tkuk mfpr izLrqr gksrk gSA izdj.k dh lexz rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, oknh dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk vafare volj iznku fd;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh is'kh fnukad dks vko';d :i ls leLr lk{khx.k dks U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr j[ksA izdj.k esa izfroknhx.k dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr lk{khx.k dk izfrijh{k.k djus gsrq rRij jgsA izdj.k oknh lk{; gsrq fnukad 20-08-2018 dh is'k dhA 20-08-18

--- --- ---

blh izdze ij ,d vkosnu i= varxZr vkns'k 17 fu;e 1 lhihlh dk is'k fd;k x;kA vkosnu i= la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k oknh lk{; gsrq fu;r gSA oknh dk LokLF; [kjkc gksus ds dkj.k

M.P.No.4962/2018

og vkt U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj lk{; nsus esa vleFkZ gSA bl laca/k esa esMhdy lfVZfQdsV orZeku vkosnu i= ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gSA oknh dh vuqifLFkfr ,oa ifjfLFkfrtU; gSA vr% fuosnu gS fd izdj.k esa vkt dh frfFk c<kbZ tkdj izdj.k dh vU; fdlh frfFk gsrq fu;r fd;k tkosA izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k esa oknh }kjk okn i= esa mYysf[kr fooknxzLr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh lgk;rk izkIr djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k oknh lk{; gsrq fu;r gSA izdj.k fnukad 08-12- 06 dks lafLFkr gksdj yxHkx 12 o"kZ ls bl U;k;ky; ds le{k yafcr gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj izdj.k dh 'kh?kz fujkdj.k fd;k tkuk vfr vko';d gSA izdj.k esa mDr vkosnu i= ds lkFk izLrqr oknh ds esfMdy izek.k i= esa oknh fdl dkj.k ls chekj gS bl okn dk Li"V mYys[k ugha gS ijUrq mDr esfMdy izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij oknh dks oknh lk{; izLrqr djus gsrq iqu% ,d volj fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA izdj.k dh lexz rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, oknh ds bl funsZ'k ds lkFk vafre volj iznku fd;k tkrk gs fd vkxkeh is'kh fnukad dks vko';d :i ls leLr lk{khx.k dks U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkfr j[ksA izdj.k esa izfroknhx.k dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr lk{khx.k dk izfrijh{k.k djus gsrq rRij jgsA izdj.k oknh lk{; gsrq fnukad 06-09-18 dk is'k gksA

06-09-18

--- ---

oknh }kjk ,d vkosnu i= varfje vkns'k 7 R 14 lgifBr /kkjk 151 CPC r; lwph vuqlkj nLrkost is'k ftls [email protected] ls fpfUg~rA udy izfroknh i{k dks nh tkosA izdj.k [email protected] ds tokc gsrq fnukWad [email protected]@2018 dks is'k gSA

19-09-18

--- --- ---

vr% mDr vkosnui= vkbZ , [email protected] vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k oknh lk{; gsrq fu;r fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k essa oknh dks lk{; gsrq Ik;kZIr volj fn;s tk pqds gSa fnukad [email protected]@18 dh vkns'k if=dk vuqlkj oknh dks lk{; izLrqr djus gsrq vafre volj Hkh iznku fd;k tk pqdk gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr esa oknh dks iqu% ,d vafre volj bu funsZ'k ds lkFk iznku fd;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh is'kh fnukad dks vius leLr lk{khx.k dks U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr j[ksa vU;Fkk oknh lk{; dk volj lekIr dj fn;k tkosxkA

M.P.No.4962/2018

izfroknhx.k dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh is'kh fnukad ij mifLFkr lk{khx.k dk izfrijh{k.k djus gsrq rRij jgsaA izdj.k & oknh lk{; gsrq fnukad [email protected]@18 dks is'k gksA

26-09-18

--- --- ---

izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA oknh }kjk ;g okn dk okni= esa mYysf[kr fooknxzLr d`f"k Hkwfe ds laca/k esa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh lgk;rk izkIr djus gsrq izfroknhx.k ds fo:) izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA mDr izdj.k fnukad [email protected]@06 ls bl U;k;ky; ds le{k yafcr gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj izdj.k dk ;Fkk'kh?kz fujkdj.k fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA oknh dks izdj.k dk ;Fkk'kh?kz fujkdj.k fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA oknh dks izdj.k esa lk{; izLrqr djus gsrq Ik;kZIr volj fn;s tk pqds gSA oknh dks fnukad 10-08-18 dks Hkh oknh lk{; gsrq volj iznku fd;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq oknh ds }kjk mDr fnukad dks Hkh viuh lk{; izLrqr djus ds LFkku ij esMhdy izek.ki= izLrqr dj izdjk esa LFkxu izkIr dj fy;k x;k FkkA bl izdkj oknh ds }kjk fnukad [email protected]@18 dks Hkh esMhdy izek.ki= izLrqr dj U;k;ky; ls LFkXku izkIr dj fy;k x;k FkkA blds i'pkr fnukad [email protected]@18 dks oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnui= varxZr vkns'k 07 fu;e 14 ¼3½ lhihlh dk fujkdj.k djus ds mijkar oknh dks oknh lk{; gsrq iqu% vafre volj iznku fd;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq vkt fnukad dks Hkh oknh ds }kjk esMhdy izek.ki= ds lkFk vkosnui= varxZr vkns'k 17 fu;e 01 lhihlh izLrqr dj izdj.k esa LFkxu pkgk x;k gSA iwoZ esa oknh dh vksj ls bl izdj.k ds laca/k esa 06 lkf{k;ksa dh lk{; U;k;ky; ds le{k ys[kc) djokbZ tk pqdh gSA oknh dh vksj ls leLr egRoiw.kZ lk{khx.k dh lk{; U;k;ky; ds le{k gks pqdh gSA izdj.k ds lexz rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr gksuk nf'kZr gksrk gSA mijksDr of.kZr dkj.k ls oknh dk mDr vkosnui= [kkfjt fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA vr% mDr vkosnui= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS RkFkk oknh dk lk{; dk volj lekIr fd;k tkrk gSA**

11. Thus, it is manifest that the trial Court was generous in granting opportunities to the petitioner to adduce evidence but at the same time, repeatedly warned the petitioner that the opportunity granted to him would be the last opportunity.

12. The trial Court was even liberal in construing its own direction of granting "Last Opportunity" to the petitioner and extended the time on several occasions even after granting the last opportunity.

M.P.No.4962/2018

13. The record does not show that the petitioner/plaintiff took the direction or even the warning of the Court seriously, rather it appears that he never bothered about the warning and filed applications after applications with vague averments that he is ill or suffering from some disease. This further shows that the conduct of the petitioner was not bonafide and that he was not interested in early disposal of the suit. It is surprising that it is not the defendant, who was dragging the trial, but was the plaintiff himself, who was causing the delay.

14. In the case of Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal vs M.S.S Food Products reported in (2012) 2 SCC 196, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :

"92. In paras 16 and 17 of the judgment, we stated : "16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. ...

17. ... The past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important circumstance which the courts must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment is made. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit - whether plaintiff or defendant

- must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don't, they do so at their own peril."

93. The doctrine of proportionality has been expanded in recent times and applied to the areas other than administrative law. However, in our view, its applicability to the adjudicatory process for determination of `civil disputes' governed by the procedure prescribed in the Code is not at all necessary. The Code is comprehensive and exhaustive in respect of the matters provided therein. The parties must abide by the procedure prescribed in the Code and if they fail to do so, they have to suffer the consequences. As a matter of

M.P.No.4962/2018

fact, the procedure provided in the Code for trial of the suits is extremely rational, reasonable and elaborate. Fair procedure is its hallmark. The courts of civil judicature also have to adhere to the procedure prescribed in the Code and where the Code is silent about something, the court acts according to justice, equity and good conscience. The discretion conferred upon the court by the Code has to be exercised in conformity with settled judicial principles and not in a whimsical or arbitrary or capricious manner. If the trial court commits illegality or irregularity in exercise of its judicial discretion that occasions in failure of justice or results in injustice, such order is always amenable to correction by a higher court in appeal or revision or by a High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction."

15. Besides, the petitioner wants to adduce evidence with regard to the additional documents sought to be produced on record and prayer for taking these additional documents on record has been dismissed by the trial Court and the order of the trial Court has been upheld by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2022 passed in M.P. No. 4705/2018. Therefore, on this ground also, the petitioner is not entitled to any further time to produce the evidence.

16. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

17. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE anand/vinod Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Date: 2022.03.24 17:02:39 +05'30'