Municipal Council, Jaisalmer And Ors vs Tulsiram

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 2.9.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jaisalmer (hereinafter

referred to as the learned trial court), whereby their right to lead evidence has been closed.

Inviting Court’s attention towards the proceedings of 2.9.2019, drawn by the learned trial court, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel contended that

initially, the learned trial court has granted an opportunity to the defendants-petitioners to complete evidence and posted the matter on 6.9.2019,

however, having done so, the Court has closed the petitioners’ evidence, inter alia, in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents and the order passed by this Court.

It is pertinent to mention that on 28.5.2019, this Court while granting indulgence to the petitioner has passed the following order:

“Issue notice to the respondents.

In the meanwhile, in the interest of justice, the learned Court below is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioners to produce their evidence on

the next date i.e., 29.5.2019 on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be disbursed to the respondent.

In case, the respondent does not accept the cost, further proceedings in Civil Original Suit No.27/2014 pending before the learned Civil Judge,

Jaisalmer shall remain stayed.â€​

A perusal of the proceedings of the learned trial court reveals that on 29.5.2019, the petitioners produced an affidavit of Sukhram Khhokhar and a

cheque of Rs.5,000/- and the matter was adjourned to 19.7.2019, with the consent of both the parties.

On 19.7.2019, the plaintiff’s counsel sought some time to cross-examine defendants’ witnesses and the matter was adjourned to 2.8.2019.

On 2.8.2019, the present petitioners â€" defendants changed their counsel and new counsel Mr. Rashid Mehar came-in and sought time for

completing evidence of the defendants and the matter was adjourned to 16.8.2019.

On 16.8.2019 also, the counsel for the defendants (petitioners herein) again sought time for leading evidence and the matter was posted to 2.9.2019.

On 2.9.2019, again petitioners’ counsel sought time and the matter was firstly adjourned to 6.9.2019, however, on perusal of the order dated

28.5.2019 passed by this Court, reproduced herinabove, the learned trial court realized that this Court had granted only one opportunity to the

petitioners to lead their evidence and thus, proceeded to close petitioners’ right to lead evidence.

True it is, that initially the Court had adjourned the matter to 6.9.2019 and granted opportunity to the petitioners, however, on the very date, it realized

that such indulgence would be contrary to the order passed by this Court and thus, eschewed petitioners’ right of leading evidence.

In considered opinion of this Court, the order dated 28.5.2019 passed in petitioners’ earlier writ petition was very specific and the petitioners were

required to lead their evidence on the next date, i.e., 29.5.2019. On 29.5.2019 as the plaintiff was not present, the cheque was not accepted by the

plaintiff and the matter was posted to 19.7.2019, on which date, the cheque was accepted and the matter was adjourned at the request of

plaintiff’s counsel.

It is noteworthy that thereafter on 2.8.2019; 16.8.2019; and even on 2.9.2019 the defendants-their counsel have not made any endeavor to complete

their evidence, for which, the learned trial court, closed petitioners’ right to lead evidence.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after examining the matter on merit, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial

court has committed no error of law. Petitioners’ right to lead evidence was earlier closed, which was resurrected by this Court while granting one

opportunity on 28.5.2019. Having got such opportunity, the petitioners have neglected and did not lead their evidence on three occasions, as noticed

above.

The petitioners are clearly lackadaisical in their approach and they hardly have any regard for the orders passed by this Court. No reason much less a

plausible reason has been brought fore to satisfy as to what prevented them from appearing on the scheduled date.

This Court is constrained to hold that petitioners do not deserve any sympathetical view, and thus not entitled for any further indulgence. Petitioners

before this Court is the Municipal Council, Jaisalmer and its Chairman holding public office; who are required to be more vigilant towards Court

proceedings, so as to ward off against unwarranted delay in deciding the cases.

In view of the discussion aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition, for which, it is dismissed.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.