Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Chajed vs Dr. Sunil on 18 March, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7227
1 FA-615-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 615 of 2024
PANKAJ CHAJED
Versus
DR. SUNIL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate with Shri Viabhav Jain and
Shri Vishal Modiwal, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Rajat Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, 5
and 6.
ORDER
1. Since legal representatives of respondent No.4 were ex parte and
none had appeared on behalf of respondents No.7 to 9 before the trial Court
at the time of passing of the impugned judgment, their presence is not
necessary for decision of this appeal hence notices of the same to them are
dispensed with.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is
finally heard.
3. This appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been preferred by
the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2024
passed in regular Civil Suit No.1332-A/2017 by the 28th District Judge,
Indore whereby his claim has been dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7227
2 FA-615-2024
CPC for want of evidence.
4. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the year 2017. The same
was listed for recording of plaintiff's evidence from time to time. On
23.02.2024 the plaintiff was granted last opportunity to adduce evidence
upon payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. Despite that on 22.03.2024 the plaintiff
failed to adduce any evidence hence his right to lead evidence was closed
and consequently the suit was dismissed for want of evidence.
5. Learned counsel for plaintiff has submitted that on the date fixed
before the trial Court an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC had
been preferred for grant of time on the ground that an application for transfer
of the civil suit has been preferred before the District Judge and for obtaining
orders on the same, time be granted. There was justifiable reason for the
plaintiff to have sought time. It is the suit of plaintiff himself and he would
not gain anything by not adducing evidence. It is submitted that plaintiff has
every intention of contesting the matter and undertakes that he would
positively adduce evidence before the trial Court and would not take any
unnecessary adjournment.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 has
submitted that plaintiff failed to adduce evidence for a period of almost 6-7
years despite having been granted sufficient opportunity. The defendants
have been made to suffer the litigation for no fault of their own. The
proceedings of the trial Court indicate that the plaintiff has been wholly
negligent towards prosecution of his case and did not adduce evidence
despite grant of last opportunity. It is evident that he does not intend to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7227
3 FA-615-2024
prosecute the suit any further hence the impugned judgment and decree does
not deserve to be interfered with.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
8. Though the suit was instituted in the year 2017 and was fixed
from time to time for recording of plaintiff's evidence but it is also evident
that in the meanwhile applications had been filed inter alia for substitution of
legal representatives of some of the defendants. The suit remained pending
consideration on those applications. Various other applications were also
filed by the parties from time to time. Though the order-sheets indicate that
plaintiff has not been very vigilant towards prosecution of his case but it also
cannot be said that he has been so negligent towards prosecution of the suit
that he ought not to be afforded any opportunity for seeking a decision on
merits. It has been categorically stated by counsel for the plaintiff that
plaintiff would diligently prosecute his suit and would not take any
unnecessary adjournment in adducing his evidence. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, in my opinion, plaintiff deserves to be afforded
another opportunity to adduce evidence.
9. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is
hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to it for decision of the suit
on merits. The plaintiff is directed to adduce his evidence on the date to be
fixed in that regard by the trial Court. It is made clear that no unnecessary
adjournment shall be granted to the plaintiff for adducing evidence. After
closure of his evidence the defendants would lead their evidence. The trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7227
4 FA-615-2024
Court is directed to ensure that evidence of plaintiff is concluded within a
period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties and the suit
itself finally preferably with a period of nine months from the date of
appearance. Since the contesting parties are represented before this Court
they are directed to appear before the trial Court on 07.04.2025 for which
date no fresh notices would be required to be issued to them.
10. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed and disposed off. The
record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
