Kiran Banerjee vs Komal And Ors

Harkesh Manuja, J

By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to an order dated 07.08.2023 paassed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambala whereby, the evidence of petitioner-plaintiiff in Civil Suit No. 596/2021 dated 01.04.2021 titled as “St. Jospeh School and Ors. Vs. Mrs. Komal” seeking for recovery of damages on accouunt of defamation, filed at her instance includding others being plaintiffs, stands closed by Court Order.

In the present case, the petitioner-plaintiff along with proforma resppondents, filed a suit for recoovery of damages to the tune of Rs.1.5 crrores alleging defamation against respondent No.1-defendant. Issues in the suit were framed on 09.03.2022 and the case was adjourned to 13.07.2022 for recording of plaintiff’s evidence. The opportunity to lead their evidence came to be closed vide Court Order on 07.08.20233. The aforesaid order has beeen impugned herein by way of present reviision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that passing of the impugned order has caused serious prejudice to her rights as substantial evidence to be led by her still remains to be produced before the trial Court so as to establish her cause therein. He further submits that the petitioner-plaintiff would conclude her entire evidence in case she is afforded two effective opportunities which earlier could not be concluded due to unavoidable circumstances relating to her health issues.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and gone through the paper-book.

Though a perusal of the impugned order dated 07.08.2023 reflects that the petitioner-plaintiff was afforded almost 7 effective opportunities to conclude her evidence, however, she failed to grab that opportunity and thus, no apparent perversity can be found with the order passed by the trial Court, yet purely in the interest of justice so as to enable the petitioner-plaintiff to put forth her case and substantiate the same, she be afforded two effective opportunities to conclude her entire evidence at her own cost, risk and responsibility especially, when her health issues have majorly contributed towards not leading of evidence by her. One of the consideration which weighs upon this court is that the petitioner happens to be an old lady of 72 years of age and on wheelchair; previously residing in New Delhi, but now in Ambala, with her daughter.

As such considering her age and ailment, it would purely be in the interest of justice that she is afforded a chance to pursue her litigation in an effective manner rather than being non-suited on account of hyper-technicalities. Further, considering the health condition of the petitioner, the trial Court is requested to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to appear as witness through video conferencing besides permitting her to examine her other witnesses physically in Court.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present petitioner is disposed of, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/ to be paid to respondent No.1-defendant.

It may be pointed out here that the present revision petition is being decided without issuance of notice to respondent No.1-defendant as it may result in delay in disposal of suit besides burdening respondent No.1-defendant with unnecessary and uncalled for litigation expenses.

The date before the trial Court is stated to be fixed for 31. 07.2024. The petitioner undertakes to examine part of her evidence on the date fixed i.e. 31.07.2024 while treating it to be first chance and on the next date fixed by the trial Court, she would conclude her remaining evidence.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.