Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma

1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner/plaintiff impugns the order of the trial court dated 24.8.2013 which has closed the petitioner/plaintiff’s evidence.

2. Before I turn to the facts of the present case, I must note the cursory and casual manner in which the present petition is filed. The impugned order closes the right to lead evidence by the petitioner/plaintiff, however, no earlier orders are filed for this Court to know that how many opportunities were granted. Not only the ordersheets are not filed, even the 2014:DHC:4426 pleadings in the suit are not filed for this Court to appreciate what are the issues involved and it is only known that the suit is a suit for recovery of Rs.2,45,000/- because of the two dates which are mentioned in the list of dates. I fail to understand how in such a perfunctory manner petitions can be filed.

3. Since the impugned order dated 24.8.2013 did not mention the earlier opportunities which were granted to the petitioner/plaintiff, I asked the counsel for the petitioner that how many opportunities petitioner/plaintiff had got to lead evidence and to which the reply was that three opportunities were granted. On a query as to where are the earlier ordersheets, counsel states that the ordersheets are in hand and therefore, could not be filed and therefore, this Court asked the counsel to read the ordersheets. The last order before the impugned order dated 24.8.2013 was passed is the order dated 18.7.2013, and which order when read shows that not three but in fact five opportunities were granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence but were not availed of. Therefore, the earlier statement by the counsel for the petitioner to this Court that only three opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead evidence was not a correct statement. This Court does not appreciate this type of a wrong statement of the counsel, more so in a petition filed in a perfunctory manner without any ordersheets or pleadings of the courts below.

4. There is no interminable entitlement to keep on seeking adjournments, and once it is clear that adjournments have been repeatedly sought and were granted to lead evidence but were not utilized, the trial court was thereafter justified in passing the impugned order dated 24.8.2013 closing the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence. Dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 05, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib