Vishnuswaroop Srivastava (deceased) through Legal Representatives vs Additional Civil Judge and Others

Mahesh Bhagwati

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 8th August, 2011 whereby the learned trial court closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioners and the order dated 21st November, 2011, whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for reopening their evidence. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the impugned order, it is revealed that on 20.10.2008, issues were framed by the trial court and on 24.1.2011, last opportunity was granted to the plaintiff-petitioners for producing the evidence. Thereafter, On 5.3.2011, last opportunity was granted to the plaintiff-petitioners to produce evidence subject to payment of cost and 31.3.2011 was fixed for producing the evidence. On that day, the plaintiff-petitioners did not produce the evidence and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. The learned trial court decided the application under Order 7 Rule 14 on 12.5.2011 and granted an opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioners to produce the evidence and they were bound down to produce the evidence on 21.7.2011. Despite that, the plaintiff-petitioners neither produced the evidence on 21.7.2011 nor on 8.8.2011. The learned trial court closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioners observing that the plaintiff-petitioners were not interested in producing the evidence.

Learned Counsel canvassed that one of the legal representative of the petitioners is in Government Job and posted out of Jaipur. Since no leave was granted to him, he did not turn up for evidence. The learned trial court arbitrarily closed the evidence and dismissed the application for reopening the evidence. Hence, the impugned orders deserve to be set-aside.

At the very out-set, it is relevant to record that a cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory and in a suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC should be maintained. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. & Others reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5789 has categorically deprecated the practice of the courts to grant more than three adjournments for recording the evidence of the parties.

Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that ample adjournments were granted by the trial court to the petitioners to produce evidence but they failed to do so. Hence, in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon''ble Apex Court, as referred above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the disposal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.