Krishan Lal vs Ramesh Bhardwaj

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Krishan Lal has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 18.07.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial court. The suit was instituted by plaintiff-petitioner on 26.03.2003 i.e. more than ten years ago. The suit was fixed for 16.10.2012 for evidence of the plaintiff including his own cross-examination as PW-1. He was present but sought adjournment stating that he was not well. The case was adjourned to 02.11.2012. However, except for his cross-examination, his remaining evidence was closed by court order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-2). The case was adjourned to 02.11.2012 for cross-examination of the plaintiff. On 02.11.2012 again, the plaintiff requested for adjournment and case was adjourned to various dates for his cross-examination. He was partly cross-examined on some of the dates of hearing, whereas on other dates of hearing, he was either not present or prayed for adjournment being not well or for some other reason. On 25.03.2013, the plaintiff produced another witness as PW-2, who tendered his affidavit of examination-in-chief. However, since evidence of the plaintiff, except for his cross-examination, stood closed vide order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-2), by order dated 25.03.2013, appearance of Satish Kumar (PW-2) as witness was disallowed by the trial court. Thereafter, plaintiff filed application (Annexure P-3) for review of the said order and for permitting appearance of Satish Kumar as witness for the plaintiff. Defendant, by filing reply (Annexure P-4), opposed the aforesaid application. Learned trial court, vide order dated 18.07.2013 (Annexure P-5), has dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition assailing orders dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-2) and 18.07.2013 (Annexure P-5).

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner prayed that Satish Kumar (PW-2) may be allowed to appear as witness of the plaintiff as he is essential witness to prove the impugned agreement being witness thereto. It was also stated that cross-examination of the plaintiff has since been concluded.

I have carefully considered the matter.

The plaintiff does not deserve indulgence of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because he tried to play smart and clever with the trial court as well as with the opposite party. Evidence of the plaintiff, except for his cross-examination, had been closed by court order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-2). However, after availing of several opportunities for this purpose, the plaintiff, thinking that the Court and the opposite party might not be remembering order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-2), put another witness Satish Kumar to be examined as PW-2 on 25.03.2013 without seeking permission of the Court, although evidence of the plaintiff, except for his cross-examination, had already been closed vide order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-2). When this fact came to the notice of the trial court, the trial court, vide order dated 25.03.2013 itself, disallowed the appearance of Satish Kumar (PW-2) as witness of the plaintiff. The said order was nothing but in consequence of order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-2). Consequently, there was no ground for reviewing order dated 25.03.2013. The plaintiff, even in application (Annexure P-3), did not seek review of order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-2). In these circumstances, review application of the plaintiff was rightly dismissed by the trial court.

As regards order dated 16.10.2012, perusal of zimni order dated 01.04.2008 reproduced in revision petition reveals that six opportunities had already been granted to the plaintiff for his evidence prior to the said order. Even thereafter, countless number of opportunities were granted to the plaintiff for his evidence. In these circumstances, evidence of the plaintiff was rightly closed vide order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-2), except for his cross-examination, which was also uncalled for indulgence in favour of the plaintiff. He had availed of so many opportunities for his own cross-examination and even after order Annexure P-2, he availed many opportunities for this purpose. Thus, there is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error either in order Annexure P-2 or in order Annexure P-5 so as to call for indulgence by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It may be added that the instant revision petition filed on 08.08.2013 is also barred by delay and laches qua order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-2). For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.