9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase at hand, it can indubitably be stated that the Defendant-Petitioner has acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation. We are constrained to say the virus of seeking adjournment has to be controlled. The saying of Gita Awake! Arise! Oh Partha is apt here to be stated for guidance of trial courts. SLP dismissed with costs which is assessed at ₹ 50,000/-. - SLP(C) No. 22628 of 2016 (CC No. 14061 of 2016) - - - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - Dipak Misra and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. For Appellant: Ashwin V. Kotemath and S. Usha Reddy, Advs. ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. If a case ever exposed the maladroit efforts of a litigant to indulge in abuse of the process of Court, the present one is a resplendent example. The factual narration, to which we shall advert to immediately hereinafter, would limpidly show that the Defendant-Petitioner has endeavoured very hard to master the art of adjournment and on occasions having been successful become quite ambitious. And the ambition had no bounds; it could reach the Everestine heights or to put it differently, could engulf the entire Pacific Ocean. The fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to this Court. But it was not to be so. In spite of the court granting adjournment subject to payment of costs, the Defendant chose not to cross-examine the witness and continued filing interlocutory applications forming the subject matters of I.A. Nos. 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 and the ordeal of the Plaintiff, a septuagenarian, continued. The difficulties faced by an old man when he is compelled to come to Court so many times to give evidence can be well imagined. In spite of this, the trial court adjourned the matter to 3.10.2015. Notwithstanding the unwarranted indulgence shown, the Defendant remained adamant and thought it wise not to participate in the suit. On 3.10.2015, though the witness was present, neither the Defendant nor her counsel turned up. The trial Court posted the suit for Defendant's evidence and adjourned the matter. After the aforesaid order came to be passed, on 22.2.2016 I.A. No. 22 of 2016 was filed seeking further cross-examination of the Plaintiff. The said prayer was declined by the trial court with costs of ₹ 1,000/-. 3. Grieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Judge, the Defendant preferred, W.P. No. 36022 of 2016 (GM-CPC) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e questions. And again: 19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. x x x x x 21. Ideally, the recording of evidence should be co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the Plaintiff, still Plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case, the Plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. 9. In the case at hand, as we have stated hereinbefore, the examination-in-chief continued for long and the matter was adjourned seven times. The Defendant sought adjournment after adjournment for cross-examination on some pretext or the other which are really not entertainable in law. But the trial Court eventually granted permission subject to payment of costs. Regardless of the allowance extended, the Defendant stood embedded on his adamantine platform and prayed for adjournment as if it was his right to seek adjournment on any ground whatsoever and on any circumstance. The non-concern of the Defendant-Petitioner shown towards the proceedings o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nism because such a thought is likely to make the right a mirage losing the centrality of purpose. Therefore, whoever has a role to play in the justice-dispensation system cannot be allowed to remotely conceive of a casual approach. And, again: Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear as day that everyone involved in the system of dispensation of justice has to inspire the confidence of the common man in the effectiveness of the judicial system. Sustenance of faith has to be treated as spinal sans sympathy or indulgence. If someone considers the task to be Herculean, the same has to be performed with solemnity, for faith is the lan vital of our system. 12. In the case at hand, it can indubitably be stated that the Defendant-Petitioner has acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation. We are constrained to say the virus of seeking adjournment has to be controlled. The saying of Gita Awake! Arise! Oh Partha is apt here to be stated for guidance of trial courts. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we decline to entertain the special leave petition and dismiss it with costs which is assessed at ₹ 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
