Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jasvinder Singh vs Ravinder Singh (2024:Rj-Jd:42873) on 19 October, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:42873]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17127/2024
Jasvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, Aged About 43 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 18 Suratgarh, Tehsil Suratgarh, District
Sri-Ganganagar Through His Power Of Attorney Holder Gurdev
Singh S/o Sh. Indra Singh, Aged About 79 Years Resident Of
Ward No. 13 Suratgarh, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Baldev Krishan Singh, Aged About
57 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 18, House No. 125 P.W.D.
Rest House Ke Samne Suratgarh, District Sri-Ganganagar
At Present Dhani Suratgarh, District Sri-Ganganagar.
2. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, Resident Of Gram
Bhoye, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib, District Amritsar.
3. Jaspreet Singh S/o Late Sh. Santa Singh, S/o Kartar
Singh, Resident Of Gram Bhoye, Tehsil Baba Bakala
Sahib, District Amritsar.
4. Smt. Daljeet Kaur Bewa Surjeet Singh, S/o Kartar Singh,
Resident Of Gram Bhoye, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib,
District Amritsar.
5. Chanpreet Singh S/o Late Surjeet Singh, S/o Kartar
Singh, Resident Of Gram Bhoye, Tehsil Baba Bakala
Sahib, District Amritsar.
6. Sarvjeet Singh S/o Late Surjeet Singh Kartar Singh,
Resident Of Gram Bhoye, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib,
District Amritsar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Baljinder Singh Sandhu
Mr. Chirag Kalani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S. Sidhu
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
19/10/2024
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated
[2024:RJ-JD:42873] (2 of 5) [CW-17127/2024]
05.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Suratgarh in Civil Original Case No.13/2014 "Ravindra
Singh v. Jasvinder Singh" whereby the application preferred by
the petitioner under order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC
for getting witness- Guru Charan Singh has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent
No.1 has filed a suit for cancellation of will dated 16.12.1992
executed by one Gurdeep Kaur in favour of the petitioner and also
declaring the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2013 passed by
the Assistant Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Suratgarh in
the revenue suit 106/2013 titled as "Jasvinder Singh v. Gurdeep
Kaur & Ors." as void. Learned counsel submitted that the
petitioner preferred an application before the learned trial Court
with a list of witnesses to be cross-examined. The said application
was allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated
08.08.2024 and the petitioner was directed to produce all the
witnesses on the next dated i.e. 23.08.2024. It was submitted
that except two witnesses viz. Guru Charan Singh S/o Guru Dayal
Singh and Resham Singh S/o Dilip Singh, all other witnesses
mentioned in the list were cross-examined. In these
circumstances, the petitioner filed an application seeking
summoning of both the witnesses at his cost. The aforesaid
application came to be rejected vide order dated 20.09.2024 and
thereafter, matter was posted on 24.09.2024 and a last
opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce all the
witnesses for their cross-examination. However, on the given date,
Guru Charan Singh could not appear before the Court for getting
himself cross-examined. The learned trial Court thereupon closed
[2024:RJ-JD:42873] (3 of 5) [CW-17127/2024]
the case of defendants appellants and posted the matter for final
hearing on 05.10.2024. On 05.10.2024, the petitioner preferred
an application under Order 18 Rule 17 stating inter-alia that Shri
Guru Charan Singh is present before the Court and also ready for
getting himself cross-examined, therefore, an opportunity to
cross-examine Shri Guru Charan Singh may be extended in favour
of the petitioner. The aforesaid application came to be rejected on
the very same date by the learned trial Court on the ground that
various opportunities for cross-examining the aforenamed witness
was already been extended to the petitioner. Further, it was held
that the application under Order 18 Rule 17 appeared to have
been filed with a view to further delay the suit which was one of
the oldest cases pending before the Court.
3. Learned counsel submitted that Shri Guru Charan Singh
being the draftsman of the will in question was a very important
witness of the case. On earlier occasions, he could not appear
before the Court due to medical issues owing to his age being 77
years. Learned counsel submitted that since, on 05.10.2024, the
witness was present before the Court and was ready for cross-
examination, the application preferred by the petitioner under
Order 18 Rule 17 ought not to have been rejected by the learned
trial Court solely on the ground that the suit in question is one of
the oldest case pending before the Court. It was thus prayed that
the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Suratgarh may be set aside
and the petitioner may be given an opportunity to cross-examine
the witness- Shri Guru Charan Singh.
[2024:RJ-JD:42873] (4 of 5) [CW-17127/2024]
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed
the writ petition. His contention is that a bare perusal of the
impugned order dated 05.10.2024 indicates that more than 10
opportunities were extended to the petitioner to produce the
witnesses. On 20.03.2024 opportunity was also afforded subject
to payment of Rs.500/-. Thereafter, on 07.08.2024, 20.09.2024
and 24.09.2024, opportunities to produce the witness were given
to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not avail the
opportunities for producing the witness- Shri Guru Charan Singh
before the Court. Hence, the learned trial Court was justified in
closing the evidence vide order dated 24.09.2024 and posting the
matter for final arguments. Learned counsel submitted that acts
and inaction of the petitioner clearly shows that an effort has been
made to further delay the suit pending before the Court for about
10 years. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned
dated 05.10.2024 being a just, perfect and legal order deserves to
be upheld by this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the
material available on record.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun
Autoplast Pvt. Ltd & Anr." reported in (2011)9 SCC 678 pleased to
observe that it is high time the Courts become sensitive to the
delay in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do
dent the efficiency of judicial process and if this menace is not
controlled adequately, the litigant public may loose faith in the
system sooner than later.
It is pertinent to note here that in the case of Shiv Cotex
(Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where
[2024:RJ-JD:42873] (5 of 5) [CW-17127/2024]
plaintiff failed to produce evidence inspite of three opportunities
and the High Court remanded the suit for fresh disposal after
giving plaintiff opportunity to lead the evidence. Hon'ble Supreme
Court further observed that 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.
7. In the present case, from the perusal of the material placed
on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds
that ample opportunities to produce witness- Shri Guru Charan
Singh for cross-examination were given to the petitioner. On
24.09.2024 the opportunity to produce the witness was closed and
the matter was posted for final arguments. The order dated
24.09.2024 has already attained finality. In that view of the
matter, the learned trial Court was justified in closing the evidence
and rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18
Rule 17 CPC vide impugned order dated 05.10.2024.
8. In wake of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any
error in the impugned order dated 05.10.2024. Hence, the present
writ petition is dismissed.
9. All pending application(s) also stands dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
470-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
