WPMS/1081/2024
2024 Latest Caselaw 980 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/1081/2024 on 20 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

                   Office Notes, reports,
                   orders or proceedings
SL.
         Date      or    directions  and                 COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   Registrar's order with
                   Signatures
                                            WPMS No.1081 of 2024
      20.05.2024                            Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioners.

2. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondents.

3. By means of present writ petition, petitioners seek to quash the judgment/order dated 31.01.2024 passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Revision No.79/2023 as well as the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by 1st Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar in O.S. No.178/2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioners u/s 151 of C.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 23.08.2023 by which opportunity of the petitioner to produce the evidence of petitioners was closed, has been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit being O.S. No.178/2015 against the petitioners/defendants seeking eviction and mesne profits; that, the petitioners/defendants filed their written statements; that, thereafter the respondents/plaintiffs adduced their evidence and the case was fixed for evidence of petitioners/defendants; that, petitioner no.1 filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief which was then cross-examined by the respondents /plaintiffs and the case was subsequently fixed for testimony of further defence witness on 10.07.2023; that, thereafter it was fixed for 20.07.2023, 02.08.2023 and 23.08.2023.

5. He would further submit that on 23.08.2023 petitioner no.1/defendant no.2 appeared before the trial court and sought time to engage a new counsel, however, the trial court did not find favour with the petitioners/defendants and closed their opportunity of adducing evidence and fixed the case for argument on 01.09.2023.

6. He would further submit that petitioners/defendants filed an application u/s 151 of CPC to set aside the order dated 23.08.2023 but the same was dismissed by the trial court vide its order dated 09.10.2023; that, being aggrieved petitioners/defendants filed a revision being Civil Revision no.79/2023; that, the learned District Judge, vide judgment/order dated 31.01.2024, dismissed the revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that the trial court and the revisional court failed to consider the well settled legal proposition that the lis should be decided on merits so as to do substantial justice between the parties.

8. He would further submit that granting an opportunity to the petitioners/defendants to adduce further evidence will not cause any prejudice to the respondents/plaintiffs.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would support the impugned judgments and orders with the contention that the suit was filed in the year 2015 and respondents/plaintiffs had completed their evidence on 27.09.2018 and since then the case was fixed for petitioners' evidence but the petitioners/defendants were delaying the matter on one pretext or another.

10. Heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

11. The Trial Court in its order dated 09.10.2023 has observed that on 22.12.2018 the suit was fixed for evidence of petitioners/defendants but despite this fact the petitioners/defendants delayed the matter; that, in the meantime on the application of the petitioners/defendants, petitioners/defendants were given opportunity to cross-examine the respondents/plaintiffs and thereafter the suit was again posted for defendants' evidence but despite several opportunities, petitioners /defendants did not adduce their evidence.

It is also mentioned in the impugned order that the suit comes in the category of oldest cases and that there is a direction of this High Court to decide the suit at the earliest.

12. While dismissing the revision, the revisional court has made a categorical observation that the suit was fixed for evidence of petitioners/defendants on 29.11.2018 and that in five years the petitioners/defendants examined DW1 only. The revisional court further observed that this case appears to be an example of misuse of legal process by the party.

13. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of impugned judgments and orders, this Court does not find any illegality or manifest error in the same, which may warrant interference by this Court.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants also could not demonstrate any illegality in the impugned judgments and orders or any sufficient ground to allow the application filed by the petitioners/defendants u/s 151 of CPC.

15. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Same is hereby dismissed in limine.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 20.05.2024 Rajni