Tripura High Court
Mr. P Saha vs Mr. R Datta on 19 July, 2021
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No. 37 of 2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P Saha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R Datta, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
19.07.2021
Heard Mr. P Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
as well as Mr. R Datta, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for
quashing the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the District Commercial Court,
West Tripura, Agartala in CS No. 12/2016. By the said order, adjournment
sought by the defendants, by filing an application in this regard, has been
rejected observing as follows:
".....records reveals that the defendants have already availed
three adjournments vide order dated 21.12.2020, 27.01.2021 and 26.02.2021
and today is the fourth date that apart, the suit is pending for disposal since
2016."
Mr. P Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
submitted that the Divisional Manager of Food Corporation of India was
required to sign the examination-in-chief for the defendants being authorized
to do so. As Mr. Saha, learned counsel has asserted that the said examination-
in-chief for the defendants could not be submitted in the court as the Divisional
Manager was not available for vetting.
Mr. R Datta, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent
has seriously objected to the prayer made in this petition contending that three
accommodations were made for this purpose and as such, the ground as taken
in this petition cannot be believed.
Mr. Datta, learned counsel as also placed his reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in Ram Siromani Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors. (judgment dated 07.02.2019 delivered in Civil Appeal Nos. 9142-
9144 of 2010) where the Apex Court has observed that unless a good ground
for adjournment it shown, no accommodation should be made by the courts.
Having appreciated the submission of the counsel for the parties,
this court is inclined to refer to the provision of order XVII Rule I of the CPC
which provides as follows:
"The court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the
suit, grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from
time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be
recorded in writing:
Provided that, no such adjournment shall be granted more than
three times for the party during hearing of the suits."
It is an admitted position that the hearing of the suit has been
fettered and the said adjournment was sought even after three adjournments
were granted. The said provision[Order XVII, Rule 1, CPC] has been
interpreted by the Apex Court as directory in nature. The court in exceptional
circumstances may also grant adjournment beyond three times only if sufficient
cause is shown for not being able to take the appropriate steps without availing
the three adjournments.
Having regard to the substantive ends of the justice, this court
would direct the District Commercial Court to afford one solitary opportunity of
filing the examination-in-chief to the defendants, subject to the condition that
the examination-in-chief under order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC be filed positively
by 02.08.2021 and the witnesses for the defendants who would file the
examination-in-chief by affidavit, shall appear for their cross-examination on
the next date as fixed by the District Commercial Court.
It has been reported by Mr. Saha, learned counsel that the next
date of the suit is posted on 10.08.2021. As such, on that date the witnesses of
the defendants shall be present to be cross-examined by the plaintiff. No
further notice would be issued to anyone, inasmuch as, the parties are
represented by their engaged counsel in this proceeding.
It is made absolutely clear that if the examination-in-chief by way
of an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC is not filed by the date as
stipulated by this court, no further accommodation be made by the District
Commercial Court and arguments be heard on 10.08.2021 as reflected in the
order dated 05.04.2021.
To pave the way for this order, the order dated 05.04.2021 is
interfered with and set aside. The defendants may be allowed to lead their
evidence in terms of the above.
However, this order is made subject to cost of Rs. 3,000/-, to be
paid by the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiff by the next date i.e.
10.08.2021.
Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no further costs.
A copy of this order be sent to the District Commercial Court,
West Tripura, Agartala forthwith.
JUDGE
satabdi
