Rakesh Jain @ Rakesh Jain Patodi S/o Late Birajmal Jain vs Sumer Chand Jain, S/o Late Sugan Chand Jain

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Petitioner is the defendant and is aggrieved by order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Eviction Suit No. 4/12, whereby and whereunder the petition to recall the order dated 03.05.2024 of closing defence evidence was rejected.

Earlier the defendant evidence was closed on 03.05.2023 and thereafter, the defendant filed a petition dated 30.05.2023 to recall the order dated 03.05.2023. The said petition was allowed on 02.06.2023 on cost. Thereafter, the defendant filed examination-in-chief on affidavit of the defendant witness-Rakesh Jain on 22.06.2023 and also a leave petition to accept those documents. The said leave petition was allowed on 11.09.2023 and thereafter, the evidence was closed. In view of the fact that sufficient opportunity was given, the learned Trial Court closed the evidence.

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the sole defendant witness has been denied the opportunity of being cross-examined, which will cause miscarriage of justice and only one opportunity is being sought for to examine the defence witness. Reliance is placed on Ram Rati V. Mange Ram through Legal representative & Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 296 wherein it has been held that rigors under Rule 17 of Order 18 does not affect the inherent powers of the court to pass the required orders for ends of justice, to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination or cross-examination or even for production fresh evidence at any stage of the suit, even after evidence is closed.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff/ opposite party that the instant suit has been filed under Section 15(3) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for eviction of the petitioner-defendant from the said shop. Earlier, there was default in payment of rent and consequently, vide order dated 27.05.2016, the defence of the defendant against the ejectment was struck off. There is no subsequent order for recall of the said order.

It is further submitted that earlier also the defence evidence was closed vide order dated 03.05.2023 which was recalled vide order dated 02.06.2023 on payment of cost. After recall of the said order, several opportunities were given to the defendant to adduce into evidence and as no evidence was produced, therefore, the impugned order has been passed.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, what is manifest is that the eviction suit filed in the year 2012 has not been concluded and is at the trial stage. It also appears that the defence of the petitioner was struck off on default of payment of rent, and the said order has not been recalled, yet the defendant was permitted to lead evidence. On earlier occasion also the defence evidence was closed and then the said order was recalled, giving further opportunity to the Petitioner to lead evidence. Still for one reason or the other the defence evidence could not be concluded. The conduct of the Petitioner is suggestive of his laxity or by design to delay the eviction proceeding. In either case the Petitioner does not deserve any indulgence of this Court. Adjournments cannot be allowed in mechanical manner. There should be sufficient cause as required under Order 17 Rule1to grant adjournment. The proviso emphasises that evidence of witnesses must be heard continuously, unless there are compelling reasons for adjournment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377 noted various factors contributing to delays which included unmerited adjournments. It is held in para 31. Apart from the above reasons, the other vital reasons include the over-tolerant nature of the courts below while extending their olive branch to grant adjournment at the drop of the hat and thereby bringing the entire judicial process to a grinding halt. It is crucial to understand that the wheels of justice must not merely turn, they must turn without friction, without bringing it to a grinding halt due to unwarranted delay. It is for such reasons that the system itself is being ridiculed not only by the litigant public but also by the general public, thereby showing signs of constant fear of delay in the minds of public which might occur during the resolution of dispute, dissuading them from knocking at the doors of justice. All the stakeholders of the system have to be alive to this alarming situation and should thwart any attempt to pollute the stream of judicial process and same requires to be dealt with iron hands and curbed by nipping them at the bud, as otherwise the confidence of the public in the system would slowly be eroded. Be it the litigant public or Member of the Bar or anyone connected in the process of dispensation of justice, should not be allowed to dilute the judicial processes by delaying the said process by in any manner whatsoever. As held by this Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal AIR (1977) 4 SCC 467 the answer to an irresponsible suit or litigation would be a vigilant judge. This analogy requires to be stretched in the instant case and to all the pending matters by necessarily holding that every stakeholder in the process of dispensation of justice is required to act swiftly, diligently, without giving scope for any delay in dispensation of justice. Thus, an onerous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the presiding officer of every court, who should be cautious and vigilant against such indolent acts and persons who attempt to thwart quick dispensation of justice. A response is expected from all parties involved, with a special emphasis on the presiding officer. The presiding officer must exercise due diligence to ensure that proceedings are conducted efficiently and without unnecessary delays. While it's important to maintain a friendly and cooperative atmosphere with the members of the Bar, this should not be misused as a pretext for frequent adjournment requests. A word of caution to the learned members of the Bar, at this juncture, would also be necessary because of they being considered as another wheel of the chariot of dispensation of justice. They should be circumspect in seeking adjournments, that too in old matters or matters which have been pending for decades and desist from making request or prayer for grant of adjournments for any reason whatsoever and should not take the goodness of the presiding officer as his/her weakness.

For the reasons discussed above I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.