Saurabh Sabharwal v. Satish Bhatia

1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 05.07.2022 in suit NO. 10132/2016 titled "Saurabh Sabharwal vs Satish Bhatia" whereby the learned Trial Court had closed the opportunity for recording the remaining evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff on the basis that sufficient time was granted and despite number of opportunities having granted, the petitioner/plaintiff failed to take steps for summoning the witnesses.

2. Mr. Kanack Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff submits that the delay of filing the petitioner’s evidence was on the ground that the files pertaining to the suit were CM(M) 320/2023 2 misplaced due to renovation at the counsel’s office and the delay had occasioned.

3. Learned counsel further submits that there was unstoppable seepage in the basement office of the counsel which had led to the massive renovations and the files kept in office were not traceable at that particular point of time as they were shifted elsewhere.

4. Learned counsel also submits that the delay had also occasioned due to the hospitalization of the father of the counsel.

5. Mr. Pandey submits that the mistake was bonafide and inadvertent and submits that the litigant should not be made to suffer for the mistakes of their counsel.

6. Mr. Pandey submits that the petitioner/plaintiff only seeks to examine the official witnesses and assures that the same would be concluded in one day.

7. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/defendant vehemently submits that the learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, had considered the past conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff from the time commencement of filing of the evidence on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff through till impugned order was passed and after having considered the lackadaisical and irresponsible manner in which the petitioner/plaintiff conducted itself, that the impugned order was passed.

8. Learned counsel has handed over a bunch of orders over the bench commencing from 14.12.2017 through till the impugned order was passed to demonstrate as per orders of the learned Trial Court, the indulgence shown to a litigant who was absolutely irresponsible and had CM(M) 320/2023 3 a callous attitude towards the directions passed by the court from time to time.

9. This court has very carefully considered the orders handed over by learned counsel for the respondent which pointedly reveal that the learned Trial Court had been granting indulgence to the petitioner/plaintiff time and again and despite having been granted innumerable opportunities as also having imposed costs, the petitioner/plaintiff appears to not have taken the directions seriously.

10. Ordinarily in such matters, this court has considered the aspect of matters being resolved on merits rather than on technicalities, however, the present case is a stark contrast to the other cases which this court has dealt with earlier.

11. A perusal of the record as also the reasons given by the petitioner in the petition to explain the delay, appear to be lame excuses without any substance in them.

12. It is also curious to note that the explanation for delay for not having filed the evidence of the witnesses on time, is identical to that of the explanation for the delay of 146 days caused in re-filing the present petition, which establishes the hollowness in the explanation provided by the petitioner/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court.

13. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substance for the reasons given by the petitioner/plaintiff and the impugned order is in accordance with the law.

14. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merits with a cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant within 2 weeks from today. The aforesaid cost CM(M) 320/2023 4 shall be handed-over to the respondent within the aforesaid stipulated time against proper acknowledgement which shall be filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under the proper index before the learned Trial Court.

15. The present petition along with the pending application(s) stands dismissed.