Dina Nath vs Sukh Ram & Others

Sandeep Sharma, J

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 24.7.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.32­I of 2019­2003, whereby evidence of petitioner/ defendant No.4 came to be closed, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set­aside the aforesaid order passed by learned Court below.

Having heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and perused the material available on record vis­a­ vis reasoning assigned by learned Court below while passing the impugned order, dated 24.7.2019, this Court finds that despite repeated opportunities (10 opportunities), defendant failed to lead evidence and as such, learned Court below had no option, but to close his evidence. Moreover, this Court finds that order impugned before this Court was passed on 24. 7.2019, whereafter case was ordered to be listed on 13. 8.2019 for arguments. On 13.8.2019, matter again came to be adjourned on the request of learned counsel representing the parties for 28.8.2019. There is no plausible explanation rendered on record qua inordinate delay in approaching this Court.

It is quite apparent from the findings recorded by learned court below that the petitioner/defendant has been very callous and negligent while pursuing his case. Since, learned Court below afforded 10 opportunities before closing the evidence, this Court is unable to accept the contention of learned counsel representing the petitioner/defendant No.4 that on account of ill­health, petitioner/defendant No.4 was unable to produce evidence.

Learned Court below has categorically recorded in the order impugned before this Court that on account of inordinate delay and lapse on the part of defendants No.1 to 4 and 6(g), proceedings of the case have been lingering from quite long. Civil suit pertains to the year, 2003, but till date learned Court below has not been able to conclude the proceedings on account of delay, which is totally attributable to the defendants, especially defendants No.1 to 4 and 6(g) and as such, no fault, if any, can be found in the impugned order, which otherwise appears to be correct in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and same is accordingly upheld. The present petition is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.