2021 (2) TMI 1360 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for eviction - arrears of rent and mesne profit - petitioners defendants are seeking time to cross examine the plaintiff's witness - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent in the year 2013. Since 2014 2015 the case was being fixed for evidence of the plaintiff and since then the defendants are seeking adjournment on all possible grounds. Number of times the Court has given last chance to cross examine with cost but they did not cross examine the plaintiff's witness. Finally the court has treated their right of cross examination as closed vide order dated 21.12.2020 which they challenged in miscellaneous petition No.6283/2019. This court while allowing the petition granted one last opportunity to the defendants to cross examine the plaintiff's witness and the counsel gave an undertaking that he shall not seek any further adjournment henceforth. This Court has also directed the trial Court to decide the suit preferably within a period of one year. The said one year period is now over but due to Corona epidemic the proceedings could not take place from 22.03.2020 till the end of November, 2020 but the last opportunity to cross examine has been availed by the defendants and still they are seeking adjournment on flimsy grounds. The plaintiffs are also senior citizens. At the time of filing the suit the plaintiff No.1 Gopal was 60 years of age. Considering the conduct of the defendants now they do not deserve any leniency from this court - Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Right to cross-examine plaintiff's witness closed by trial court.
2. Application for adjournment due to counsel's health issues rejected, leading to closing of defendants' right to cross-examine.

Issue 1: Right to cross-examine plaintiff's witness closed by trial court.

The defendants in a civil suit sought to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness but failed to do so despite multiple adjournments. The trial court closed their right to cross-examine after granting several opportunities. The defendants challenged this order in a miscellaneous petition, which was allowed by the High Court, granting them a last opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The High Court directed the trial court to decide the suit within a year. However, despite the direction, the cross-examination did not take place. The plaintiff then filed an application to delete the name of a deceased defendant and sought to proceed with the case. The defendants sought adjournments, citing various reasons, including health issues related to COVID-19. The trial court rejected their application and closed their right to cross-examine, leading to the filing of the present petitions by the defendants.

Issue 2: Application for adjournment due to counsel's health issues rejected, leading to closing of defendants' right to cross-examine.

During the proceedings, the defendants' counsel requested an adjournment due to health concerns related to COVID-19, stating that he could not cross-examine from a distance of 6ft. in the closed courtroom. The court rejected this application and closed the defendants' right to cross-examine, setting the case for a future date. The defendants argued for one last opportunity to cross-examine in the interest of justice, while the plaintiff's counsel opposed, citing the defendants' history of delaying tactics since 2014. The plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction and rent arrears in 2013, and the defendants had been seeking adjournments repeatedly. Despite the High Court's previous direction and the lapse of the one-year period, the defendants continued to seek adjournments without providing adequate supporting documents for their requests. The court noted the casual approach of the defendants and their counsel, dismissing the petitions due to their conduct and lack of deserving leniency.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the closure of the defendants' right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness and the subsequent rejection of an adjournment application, leading to the dismissal of the defendants' petitions.