Smt. Raj Kaur vs Smt. Lakhwinder Kaur and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 27.10.2010, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandigarh.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that the present suit was filed by Petitioner-Plaintiff in the year 2004. Notice was issued to the Respondents-Defendants for 27.9.2004. Respondents-Defendants appeared, filed written statement contesting the suit filed by Petitioner-Plaintiff. Issues were framed on 15.2.2007. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 20.3.2007 for evidence of Petitioner-Plaintiff and however, when no evidence was present, the case was adjourned to 25.5.2007 for the same purpose. When no evidence was present on that day, the case was adjourned to 26.7.2007. When no evidence was present on 26.7.2007, the case was adjourned to 10.10.2007 subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as cost. However, on 10.10.2007, one witness was present but he was not examined as he did not bring record and the case was adjourned to 14.12.2007 for remaining evidence of Plaintiff. On 14.12.2007 also, only one witness was present and, however, he was not examined and last opportunity was granted to Plaintiff for 6.3.2008, on which date, the Court was on leave and the case was adjourned to 10.6.2008. On 10.6.2008 as well one witness, Haripal was examined and however, the case was adjourned to 23.9.2008, on which date also no witness was examined and the case was adjourned to 19.12.2008, when one witness was examined and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 28.2.2009, on which date also, when no witness was examined, then the case was adjourned to 5.5.2009, thereafter to 3.9.2009, then to 5.11.2009 and then for 12.1.2010, when the evidence of the Plaintiff was closed. However, Plaintiff was granted opportunity to examine P.W. Haripal and the case was adjourned to 17.3.2010.

Order dated 12.1.2010 was challenged by the Petitioner-Plaintiff before this Court by filing Civil Revision No. 2121 of 2010 and this Court granted one more opportunity to her by passing the order dated 30.3.2010, operative part of which reads as under:

In my opinion, when the matter is still pending, it would be in the interest of justice to permit the Petitioner to lead her entire evidence on the date fixed at her own responsibility. Ordered accordingly. It is, however, made clear that no further adjournment will be granted for the purpose.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs.

As the main petition has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

Another opportunity was granted by learned trial Court. Three witnesses were examined by the Petitioner-Plaintiff and when no other evidence was present, the evidence of the Plaintiff was closed vide impugned order, which reads as under:

Three P.Ws. are present and examined. Today was the last opportunity given to the Plaintiff to conclude her entire evidence to be produced at own responsibility. Evidence of the Plaintiff is closed by Court order. Now to come up on 24.2.2011 for Defendant''s evidence.

Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC has made it clear that no adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit. The same reads as under:

Court may grant time and adjourn hearing.-(1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit.

However, perusal of aforementioned orders passed by learned trial Court shows that Petitioner-Plaintiff has misused the process of the Court. Sufficient opportunities to lead evidence were already availed. Even after granting one more opportunity by this Court, evidence could not be concluded. She has again come to this Court by way of this revision.

Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.