Baby Mahila vs Jagmohan Singh

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the interlocutory order passed on 12.05.2011 in Case no. 11-A/2010 by Civil Judge Class I, Bhander, Distt. Datia, whereby the Court has closed the right of defendant/petitioner herein to adduce evidence.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointing out the order of hearing dated 03.05.2011 contends that the trial Court after recording the appearance of rival parties found that plaintiff witnesses were absent and since the plaintiff declined adducing of evidence by praying for another further opportunity to adduce evidence, the right of the plaintiff was declared closed and the case was fixed on 12.05.2011 for defendant to adduce evidence.

On 12.05.2011, the defendant sought time to adduce evidence on the ground that today he has brought certain photocopies of the documents whose original he has not brought to the Court. The trial Court closes the right of the defendant to adduce evidence by observing that under the amended CPC, all documents sought to be relied upon by the defendant ought to be presented alongwith the written statement and therefore, the prayer for adjournment was declined. The trial was then fixed for final arguments on 20.06.2011.

It is evident from the reading of impugned order that the trial Court after closing the evidence of plaintiff on 03.05.2011, adjourned the trial to be taken up on 12.05.2011 when the request for adjournment by the defendant for adducing evidence was declined and defendant''s right of adducing evidence was closed without affording even a single more opportunity.

True it is, that under the amended CPC, the defendant is expected to file all the documents along with the written statement. However, CPC does permit under Order 8 Rule 1-A to produce documents at a later stage.

Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the plaintiff to adduce evidence. Atleast one, if not more opportunity ought to have been afforded to the defendant, all be it on imposition of cost, for adducing evidence.

The grant of adjournment should not always be frowned upon, since adjournment enable the trial Court to afford due and sufficient opportunity to the parties to prosecute their case, without which the trial would either proceed ex-parte or would led to a situation where justice would not be done to both the parties. Haste and adamancy in conduction of trial proceedings without giving appropriate and reasonable elbow room to the rival parties to prosecute their case, results more often in failure of justice than not. The trial Court ought not to be oblivious of the fact that parties are human beings who have their own failings, weaknesses, inconveniences, physical disabilities, preoccupations, inhibitions etc. These attributes which are inherent in every human being are taken care of inter-alia by the device of adjournment of hearing, subject to the satisfaction of reasonable and justified cause. Mechanical and technical approach in conducting the trial cannot lead to achieving of justice and discovery of truth. Thus, the power of adjournment should be exercised for reasonable cause by the trial Court so as to achieve the ultimate goal of doing complete justice and preventing failure of justice.

In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that insufficient opportunity has been afforded to the defendant to adduce evidence.

Accordingly, the impugned order 12.05.2011 in Case no. 11-A/2010 by Civil Judge Class I, Bhander, Distt. Datia so far as it closes the right of the defendant to adduce evidence is set aside.

The trial may now proceed by affording due and sufficient opportunity to the defendant to adduce evidence.

With the above said direction, this petition stands disposed of sans cost.