Lakhan Lal vs Durga Prasad and Others

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

He is heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 09/05/2013 passed by IV Civil Judge, Class-I, Chhindwara in Civil Suit No. 41 -A/2012 whereby the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce evidence has been closed. The petitioner''s counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record along with averments of the petition argued that the right to adduce evidence of the petitioner has been closed by the trial court under the wrong premises. In continuation he said that the petitioner/plaintiff along with witnesses were present before such court on the date 09/05/2013 to adduce the evidence instead their deposition were not recorded and the impugned order was passed and right of the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce evidence wrongly closed. He also argued that in case this court comes to a conclusion that there were any default on the part of the petitioner in non-producing the evidence on the aforesaid date then by adopting some lenient view he be extended opportunity to adduce the evidence in the matter by imposition of cost under the discretion of this court and prayed for admission and allowing this petition accordingly.

Keeping in view the aforesaid arguments advanced by the petitioner''s counsel I have carefully gone through the averments of the petition as well as papers available on record so also the impugned order Annexure P/1. It appears from the impugned order that initially the date for recording of the evidence of petitioner was fixed on 17/07/2012 and thereafter till 18/09/2012 for one reason or the another at the instance of the petitioner case was adjourned and when, again the adjournment was prayed on 18/09/2012 the last opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce his evidence even then on subsequent dates till 09/05/2013, the date of passing of the impugned order no evidence was adduced by the petitioner. It is apparent from the impugned order dated 09/05/2013 that on such date when the matter was taken in the first round, the plaintiff was not present then the case was directed to place before the court after coming the plaintiff, on which it has placed about 1.05 pm., at that time the petitioner was represented through Ramswaroop Tiwari, Advocate, on the request of the parties, the arguments on I.A., filed under order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC was heard and such application was decided and subject to payment of cost of Rs. 200/- such application was allowed and documents were taken on record. At 1.55 pm., when the petitioner was asked to adduce the evidence then he made request that case be taken up after lunch hours, subsequent to lunch hours when the matter was taken but no one was present on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce the evidence then the proceedings were adjourned with direction to place the matter after sometime and again the matter was placed before the court and the plaintiff was called through peon of the court according to the procedure, no one was appeared on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce the evidence and in such circumstances by the later part of impugned order the trial court has closed the right of the petitioner to adduce the evidence in the matter and such order is under challenge in this petition.

After perusing the aforesaid order of the trial court I have found that the same has been passed in a speaking manner by taking all existing circumstances in the matter and in the available circumstances, there was no option with the trial court except to close the right of the petitioner to adduce the evidence in support of the plaint and in such premises I have not found any perversity, illegality and irregularity or nothing against the propriety in the order impugned which requires any interference at this stage under the superintending jurisdiction of this court enumerated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Even otherwise in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Another, Balanagar Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, holding that the order passed by subordinate court under it''s vested jurisdiction and no jurisdictional error is committed by such court then the same could not be interfered under the revisional jurisdiction of this court, so, in such premises also the impugned order could not be interfered by this court under the superintending jurisdiction of this court. In view of the aforesaid discussion I have not found any such material circumstances in the impugned order which requires any interference at this stage, consequently this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.