Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Mahajan vs Uma Mahajan And Others on 23 April, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055192-DB
2024:PHHC:055192-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( Sr. No. 133 ) LPA No. 699 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2024
Deepak Mahajan
..... Appellant
Versus
Uma Mahajan and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present : Appellant in person.
***
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
(1) The instant intra court appeal is directed against judgment dated
06.12.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of the
appellant's writ petition filed by him seeking therein issuance of directions to
the trial Court to expeditiously decide the civil suit preferred by the appellant
against respondents No.1 & 2 before the Civil Court at Pathankot.
(2) After hearing the appellant in person and going through the record
of the case as also after examining the impugned judgment we find that in spite
of the fact that the learned Single Judge did not find the appellant's conduct to
inspire confidence as the record revealed that the delay in the disposal of the
appellant's civil suit was on account of filing of several miscellaneous
applications by him, the learned Single Judge disposed of the appellant's writ
petition by issuing directions for expeditious disposal of the appellant's
aforesaid civil suit. However, such directions were subject to the appellant's
cooperation. In this regard the relevant observations by the learned Single
Judge read as under : -
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055192-DB
LPA No. 699 of 2024 [2] 2024:PHHC:055192-DB
"Chronology of facts noticed above reflects that the
petitioner-plaintiff has himself failed to conclude its evidence
despite the case having been fixed for recording of plaintiff
evidence since 25.03.2019. If there is no lapse attributable to any
Court proceeding resulting in delay, the petitioner, who is himself
the cause of delay, would not be justified in finding fault with the
pace of the suit and alleging delay to the Court. His undesirability
to place on record the zimni orders leads to an inference that he
wants to conceal more than he wishes to reveal.
The conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence
and the delay is evidently attributable to his own lapses and
multiplicity of miscellaneous applications. Considering that none of
the defendants is appearing before the trial Court and have already
been proceeded against ex-parte, it cannot be assumed or alleged
that the delay is attributable to any deliberate act or omission on
the part of the defendants therein.
The petitioner, however, submits that he shall not seek
any adjournment in the matter and that he would expeditiously
conclude his evidence. Needless to mention that in the event of the
petitioner diligently pursuing his case and concluding evidence
before the Civil Court, the proceedings shall be conducted
expeditiously."
(3) In the light of the afore facts, we concur with the reasoning given
in the impugned judgment.
(4) Dismissed.
(5) All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
23.04.2024 ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA )
sunil yadav JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2 of 2
