Himachal Pradesh High Court
____________________________________________________ vs Bhupinder Bhawan Trust And Another on 21 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CR No. 25 of 2024
Decided on: 21.04.2024
____________________________________________________
Madhusudan Lal Chopra ........... petitioner
Versus
Bhupinder Bhawan Trust and another
..........respondents
____________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate, for
respondent No.1 and respondent
No.2 Caveator.
____________________________________________________
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
Caveat Petition No. 115 of 2025
Caveat discharged. The caveat petition stands
disposed of.
The present petition has been filed laying a challenge
to order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controller
in Rent Case No. 139 of 2019 whereby the evidence of the
petitioner/respondent before the trial Court stands closed vide
orders of the Court.
2. Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate, has put in appearance
on behalf of the respondents. In order to support the impugned
order, the caveator has placed on record the certified copies of
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
the trial Court demonstrating the numerous occasions on which
an adjournment was sought by the present petitioner to lead
evidence and copies of application filed by the present petitioners
before the trial Court seeking an adjournment.
3. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings.
4. Vide order dated 24.04.2024, the present
respondent had closed their evidence. Only thereafter was a right
given to the present petitioner to summon his witnesses by filing a
list thereof. Witnesses were to be summoned on 11.07.2024. On
11.07.2024, no witnesses on behalf of the present petitioners
were present before the trial Court as steps had not been taken.
Further time of seven days were granted for taking steps, the
matter was thereafter posted for 06.09.2024.
5. On 06.09.2024, no evidence on behalf of the present
petitioner was present as yet again steps had not been taken.
Further time was granted on 06.09.2024 for producing evidence
on 11.11.2024. Yet again, no steps were taken within stipulated
period of one week as was granted on 06.09.2024. Hence, on
11.11.2024, no evidence was present.
6. However, on 11.11.2024, an application was filed on
behalf of the present petitioner seeking an adjournment. For the
reasons stated in the application, the same was allowed and time
for producing evidence was extended. While granting an
extension, it was made clear that the evidence now be produced
3
on self responsibility. Thereafter, the matter was posted on
08.01.2025.
7. Yet again no evidence on behalf of the present
petitioner was present despite having been afforded last
opportunity to lead evidence on self responsibility. However, on
the said date, an application was filed stating therein that the
present petitioner had undergone dialysis in Delhi and hence was
confined to bed as he had been devised bed rest. In the
aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, by way of an
exceptional opportunity, the matter was now posted for 7th March,
2025 for producing the evidence of the present petitioner on self
responsibility.
8. On 07.03.2025, when the matter was listed, no
witnesses on behalf of the present petitioner was present in the
Court. An application on behalf of the present petitioner was filed
seeking an adjournment. The reason cited in the application being
that the counsel for the petitioner was unavailable on account of
an eye operation. In the application, it was submitted that from
27th February, 2025 to 15th March, 2025, the counsel for the
petitioner would be unavailable on account of eye operation.
9. In the aforesaid narrated circumstances in the case
at hand and the fact that no medical record had been placed on
record, the application was vehemently opposed by the present
respondents before the trial Court. The objection being that no
4
medical record had been appended alongwith with the present
application to demonstrate the averments being made in the
application.
10. Other than the aforesaid, keeping in view the last
order dated 08.01.2025 whereby one last opportunity by way of
an exception had been granted to the present petitioner to lead
evidence on self responsibility and it had been made absolutely
clear in the said order that no further adjournment shall be given
for any reason whatsoever the trial court was of the view that no
further opportunity could be granted to the present petitioner.
Besides the aforesaid, keeping in view the track record of the
present petitioner in leading evidence as is demonstrable from
orders dated 24.4.2024, 11.7.2024, 16.9.2024, 11.11.2024,
20.12.2024 and 08.01.2025. The closing of evidence was sought
to be justified by the trial Court.
11. The present case shows how the civil process has
been abused by the present petitioner in the case at hand by
seeking repeated adjournments. Orders 17 Rule 1 of the CPC
specifically provides that not more than three adjournments shall
be granted during the hearing of the suit. In my considered view
even the three adjournments cannot be granted as a matter of
right.
5
12. In the case at hand, it would be appropriate to refer
to Order 17 Rule 2 sub rule (d). The same is being reproduced
here-in-below for a ready reference:-
“(d). where the illness of a pleader or his inability
to conduct the case for any reason, other than
his being engaged in another Court, is put
forward as a ground for adjournment, the Court
shall not grant the adjournment unless it is
satisfied that the party applying for adjournment
could not have engaged another pleader in time”,
13. From a perusal of the application filed before the trial
Court seeking adjournment on account of eye operation of the
counsel for the petitioner i.e. Annexure P-3, it is evident that
conspicuous by absence is an averment in the application
wherefrom the trial Court could have been satisfied that in given
circumstance, the petitioner in the case at hand could not have
engaged another pleader in time.
14. In the case at hand, the petitioners have been
dragging on the proceedings unnecessarily before the trial Court
by taking adjournments continuously. The same is detrimental to
the interest of the other party. Such callousness, indifference and
laxity on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his case before the
trial Court cannot be tolerated. The litigant must help the Court by
an effective participation for expeditious disposal of the case.
15. In the case at hand after having taken numerous
opportunities for leading evidence, the petitioner can hardly
challenge the correctness of the impugned order more particularly
6
on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in it or that the trial Court has wrongly
exercised jurisdiction.
16. It has been held by this Court in Shamsher Singh v.
Surat Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 2298 that if a party does not
lead evidence despite repeated opportunities granted to it, then
the Court is not supposed to wait infinitely for the party to lead its
evidence. It is a conscious act of a party not to lead its evidence
and the consequences thereof have to be borne by the party. It
was observed:-
“4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and
having perused the judgments and decrees passed
by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned
Appellate Court along with the record of the case, in
my considered view, the judgment passed by the
learned Appellate Court is not sustainable in law. It is
a matter of record that the evidence of the defendant
was closed by the learned Trial Court after affording
him more than three opportunities to lead evidence. If
a party does not lead evidence despite reasonable
opportunities granted to it, then the Court is not
supposed to wait till eternity for the party to lead its
evidence. It is a conscious act of a party not to lead
its evidence and the consequences thereof have to
be borne by the party. This extremely important
aspect of the matter has not been taken into
consideration by the learned Appellate Court while
ordering that the defendant be granted an
opportunity to lead evidence.” (Emphasis supplied)
17. Granting of repeated adjournments in routine manner
and how it affects the justice delivery system came to be
considered before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali
7
Rathod vs. Gopal and Others, 2021 (12) SCC 612 , wherein, it
has been held as under:-
“9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery
system is facing acute problem of delay which
ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to
justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting
because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking
repeated adjournments by the advocates and 6
mechanically and in routine manner granted by the
courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in
access to justice and not getting the timely justice it
may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants
in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task
of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated
adjournments break the back of the litigants. The
courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties with
the object of strengthening the confidence of
common man in the institution entrusted with the
administration of the justice. Any effort which
weakens the system and shake the faith of the
common man in the justice dispensation has to be
discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the
adjournments in routine manner and mechanically
and shall not be a party to cause for delay in
dispensing the justice. The courts have to be
diligence and take timely action in order to usher in
efficient justice dispensation system and maintain
faith in rule of law.
10. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts
refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a
times they are accused of being strict and they may
face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial
officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is
clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his
duties to the litigants who are before the courts and
who have come for justice and for whom Courts are
meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to
provide timely justice to the litigants.
11. Take an example of the present case. Suit was
for eviction. Many a times the suits are filed for
eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of
the landlord. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on
the ground of personal bonafide requirement is not
8getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the
decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for
getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal
bonafide requirement may be defeated. The resultant
effect would be that such a litigant would lose
confidence in the justice delivery 7 system and
instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may
adopt the other mode which has no backing of law
and ultimately it affects the rule of law. Therefore, the
court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and
as observed hereinabove they shall not grant
repeated adjournments in routine manner.
12. Time has now come to change the work culture
and get out of the adjournment culture so that
confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice
delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is
maintained.
18. Accordingly for the foregoing reasons, the present
petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the
pending miscellaneous, applications, if any.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
April 21, 2025
tarun
[ad_1]
Source link