Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnuprasad vs Smt. Laxmibai on 8 August, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:23967
1 FA-933-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2024
FIRST APPEAL No. 933 of 2021
VISHNUPRASAD
Versus
SMT. LAXMIBAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dilip Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for respondents though served and respondent No.5 being
represented.
ORDER
1. This appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been preferred by
the plaintiff/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
17.11.2021 passed in Civil Suit No.17-A/2013 by the 25th District Judge,
Indore whereby his claim has been dismissed in exercise of power under
Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC for failure on his part to adduce evidence.
2. The suit had been instituted by the plaintiff in the year 2013. After
filing of the written statement and framing of issues by the trial Court the
same was fixed for recording of plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff prayed for
and was granted time on occasions for adducing his evidence on and from
20.01.2015. Eventually on 17.11.2021 the suit was dismissed holding that
despite grant of several opportunities to him the plaintiff has not adduced his
evidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:23967
2 FA-933-2021
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that there was
justifiable reason for the plaintiff for not adducing his evidence. On
17.11.2021 the plaintiff had stated before the Court that he had given a notice
to the defendants under Section 66 of the Evidence Act whereas the
defendants had stated that the same had not been so given and was received
the same day itself and thereafter the impugned order has been passed
straight away which is wholly illegal. Opportunity ought to have been
afforded to plaintiff to adduce evidence since he is very much interested to
do so.
4. None has appeared on behalf of respondents to oppose this appeal
despite service of notice upon them.
5. From the record it does appear that the plaintiff had been on
earlier occasions grant time for adducing his evidence. However on
17.11.2021 the contention of the plaintiff as regards consideration of an
application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC and a notice under Section
66 of the Evidence Act was considered and decided. From the impugned
order it does not appear that the plaintiff sought time for adducing his
evidence which was refused by the trial Court and thereafter the order was
passed. It is apparent that after consideration of the application under Order
11 Rule 14 of the CPC and notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act the
trial Court has straight away recorded the number of occasions on which the
plaintiff had been granted time to adduce evidence and observing that he has
failed to do so, has dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has not even been
afforded any opportunity to furnish any reason as to why on that day he was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:23967
3 FA-933-2021
not able to adduce his evidence. It does not even appear that on that day the
plaintiff had prayed for time to adduce his evidence.
6. Though the suit is of the year 2013 but the same could not have
been dismissed for want of evidence on that ground. The trial Court has
observed that the case is in the list of 25 cases which have to be decided
within a specific time frame as per the order of this Court. The same cannot
be a justifiable reason by any stretch of imagination for dismissing the suit in
the manner as has been done by the trial Court. While it is true that the case
is old and was under a direction of this Court for being decided
expeditiously, but that would not mean that it has to be disposed off in any
manner and somehow by ignoring the rules of procedure and application of
relevant legal principles. It cannot be said to be the intention of this Court
that the cases which are included in the list of 25 old cases have to be buried
by the date fixed in any manner whatsoever by giving a complete go bye to
the established legal principles.
7. In my opinion the trial Court has acted in an extremely harsh and
unwarranted manner in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for want of
evidence. It may also be noticed that there has not been any contest to this
appeal on part of the defendants. Consequently the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court deserves to be and is accordingly set aside and the
matter is remanded back to it to decide the case in accordance with law. The
plaintiff has assured this Court that there shall not be any negligence on his
part in the prosecution of the suit. In case he does so, the trial Court would
be free to take appropriate action against him as per law. This order shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:23967
4 FA-933-2021
subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall pay a cost of Rs.8,000/- (i.e.
Rs.2,000/- each) to defendants No.1 to 4 before the trial Court. The plaintiff
is directed to appear before the trial Court on 30.08.2024 for further
proceedings.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed off. The record of
the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
