Rajasthan High Court
Ram Lal Son Of Shri Punam Chand vs Santosh Chauhan Son Of Shri ... on 18 July, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4794/2019
Ram Lal Son Of Shri Punam Chand, Resident Of House No.
2/16, In Front Of Topdara School Gate, Topdara, Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Santosh Chauhan Son Of Shri Gajanand Chauhan,
Resident Of Sasant Colony, Masuda Road, Beawar Road,
Beawar, District Ajmer.
2. Smt. Chaganbala Wife Of Shri Navratan Mal And Daughter
Of Chand Mal, Resident Of Plot No. 57, Raja Radha
Govind Colony, Dher Ke Balaji, Jaipur District, Jaipur
(Since Deceased) Through Her Legal Representatives
2/1 Ashok Kumar Son Of Navratan Mal, Resident Of Plot No.
57, Raja Radha Govind Colony, Dher Ke Balaji, Jaipur,
District Jaipur.
2/2 Lal Chand Son Of Navratan Mal, Resident Of Plot No. 57,
Raja Radha Govind Colony, Dher Ke Balaji, Jaipur, District
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Shailendra Sharma for Mr.Alok
Chaturvedi
For Respondent(s) : Ms.Harshita Gupta for Mr.Ram Naresh
Vijay
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
18/07/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff
challenging the order dated 16th May, 2018, whereby the Civil
Court has closed the right of petitioner-plaintiff to lead his
evidence.
The order dated 16th May, 2018 was also assailed by the
petitioner by filing an application under Sections 151 and 152 of
(2 of 4) [CW-4794/2019]
CPC and the said prayer has also been declined by the Civil Court
vide order dated 15th January, 2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that
though suit has been filed by the petitioner challenging the sale
deed, executed in favour of the respondent-defendant, however,
the evidence of the petitioner could not be completed, as during
pendency of the suit, sometimes proceedings were transferred to
the different Courts and sometimes, there was even suggestion of
settling the dispute amicably.
Learned counsel submitted that in absence of any evidence
in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, the suit, filed by the petitioner,
could not be properly prosecuted by him and as such, in the
interest of justice, this Court may interfere in the present case and
grant one opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court
below has rightly rejected prayer of the petitioner to lead
evidence, as the suit was pending since 2007 and the Civil Court
was obliged to dispose of the matter, which were pending from
more than ten years.
Learned counsel further submitted that the issues in the suit
were framed on 19th March, 2013 and on 26th April, 2018, last
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence and
even when the last opportunity was not availed by the petitioner,
the Court below has rightly passed the order dated 16 th May,
2018.
Learned counsel submitted that even if the suit is filed by the
petitioner-plaintiff and the matter is not further reached to the
stage of recording evidence, the Courts below are required to
refuse opportunity of evidence to such defaulting parties.
(3 of 4) [CW-4794/2019]
Learned counsel submitted that vexatious litigation, initiated
by the petitioner, has to meet with this kind of fate as the court
proceedings are taken for granted without any justifiable cause
and adjournments have been sought.
Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that
even the ground of illness, which was taken of not producing
evidence, was not supported by any cogent evidence and as such,
the Court below had no option but to pass the said order.
Learned counsel for the respondent also places reliance on
the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gayathri
Vs. M.Girish [(2016) 14 SCC 142] as well as in the case of
Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. Vs.Nirmala Devi & Ors.
[(2011) 8 SCC 249].
On the strength of said judgments, learned counsel
submitted that the concept of justice, is to dispose of the case in
speedy manner and if undue delay is caused, in producing
evidence, the purpose of Civil Procedure Code to enable the Court
to give justice in speedy manner, is frustrated.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that though the suit is filed in the year 2007
and yet the petitioner did not complete his evidence till he was
given several opportunities by the Court below.
This Court further finds that the Court below had imposed
cost at one point of time for producing evidence and yet the
petitioner failed to do so.
This Court finds that if the suit is filed by the present
petitioner and issues have been framed then in the interest of
(4 of 4) [CW-4794/2019]
justice, one opportunity may be given to the petitioner to lead his
evidence.
This Court finds that the case was transferred to the different
Courts and parties also tried to have amicable settlement of the
dispute.
This Court, considering the facts of this case, find that in the
interest of justice, the petitioner is required to be given one
opportunity to produce evidence and for delaying the proceedings,
he is required to compensate the respondent-defendant.
Accordingly, this Court sets-aside the orders dated 16 th May,
2018 and 15th January, 2019 and grants one opportunity to the
petitioner to produce evidence with direction that he will not take
unnecessary adjournment in the case for producing the evidence
and as such, it is directed that on the next date, the petitioner
would be permitted to produce his evidence on the cost of
Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondent-defendant and the Court
below, only after ensuring the payment of cost to the respondent-
defendant, will permit the petitioner to lead his evidence, as
directed above.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Preeti Asopa /17
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
