Krishan Kumar Gupta v. Neha Khanna

1. Petitioner is pursuing a suit for recovery.

2. It was, initially, filed under Order XXXVII CPC but later on, it was converted into an ordinary civil suit.

3. After completion of pleadings and framing of issues, learned Trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner for recording of evidence of the parties on 24.01.2024.

4. Petitioner herein i.e. Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta (plaintiff) appeared before learned Local Commissioner as PW-1. His examination could not be concluded, on few earlier occasions.

5. On 19.07.2024, learned Trial Court granted one more opportunity to plaintiff to conclude his evidence. However, it also imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon him for causing delay in the matter.

6. The plaintiff was accordingly directed to appear before the learned Local Commissioner on 23.07.2024 for recording of his such evidence.

7. The plaintiff, instead, apprised the learned Local Commissioner that he would be moving an application seeking waiver of the cost and, therefore, he did not appear.

8. Fact remains that when such application was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 05.08.2024, it dismissed the above said application seeking waiver of the cost and also simultaneously closed the opportunity of the plaintiff to enter into witness box and directed that his already recorded evidence be also taken off the record.

9. Such order is under challenge.

10. Nobody appears from the side of the respondent/defendant despite service of advance notice.

11. Admittedly, the plaintiff was permitted to examine his other witnesses and has already examined such other witnesses and now PE is stated to be complete.

12. It is quite evident and apparent that the petitioner seems to have taken the things for granted. In case, he wanted to move any application seeking waiver of cost, it should have been moved well in advance. But, for the reasons best known to him, such application was moved at the last moment which seems to have invited the irk of the Court as well, particularly, keeping in view the previous opportunities which had already been given to the plaintiff.

13. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he, now, raises no grievance with respect to the dismissal of his application seeking waiver of cost. He, however, states that the statement of PW-1 has already been recorded in part and if one more opportunity is given, he shall ensure that the plaintiff appears before the learned Local Commissioner for the purposes of conclusion of his cross-examination.

14. It is informed that now there is no date, as such, before the learned Local Commissioner and the matter is now scheduled for further consideration before the learned Trial Court on 05.11.2024.

15. The plaintiff is stated to be a Chartered Accountant and is also appointed as a ‘Resolution Professional’ and, therefore, at times, he has to go out of town and it is submitted that there was never any intent to prolong the proceedings, particularly, when it happens to be his own case whereby he himself seeks recovery.