Full Text
CM(M) 799/2015 & C.M. No.17384/2015
LAXMI C HAND @ LAKKHU......Petitioner
Through Mr. R.K.Bhardwaj and Mr. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, Advocates
Respondent
Through None
03.02.2016 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2015 vide which the evidence of the defendant stood closed.
The present suit is a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant submits that it was the plaintiff who was all along taking adjournments and not the defendant and the impugned order suffers from illegality on this count, as the evidence of the defendant stood closed without there being a justifiable reason. He has drawn the
- attention of this Court to the various orders passed by the learned Trial
Judge.
Record shows that four witnesses of the defendant had filed their affidavits by way of evidence. This is reflected in the order dated
03.05.2013. Matter was thereafter listed for cross examination of DW-
2016:DHC:8800
ORDER
1. On the next three dates which followed the counsel for the plaintiff was not available. Cost was also imposed. Thereafter, at joint request the matter was again renotified for evidence of the defendant. Matter was listed for 15.02.2014, on that date the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. On 14.03.20 14 counsel for the plaintiff was not available. On 05.04.2014 last opportunity had been granted to the plaintiff to cross examine the defendant witnesses and the matter,was renotified for 03.05.2014. On 17.05.2014 counsel for the plaintiff was again not available and the matter was again relisted for evidence of the defendant. On 22.05.2015 the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17 seeking adjournment to cross examine the witnesses of the defendant stood dismissed. Matter was relisted for defendant's evidence for 06.06.2015. Matter was again relisted for 22.07.2015 and then for 24.08.20 15 as on that date lawyers were on strike. It was on the next date i.e. 24.08.2015 that the Court noted that since witnesses of the defendant were not present defendant evidence should be closed. Counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the record shows that it was the plaintiff who all along taking adjournments and the witnesses of the defendant had already filed their affidavits in examination in chief and were also present on several dates on which dates plaintiff sought adjournments as his counsel was not available. A - valuable right would be lost to him in case the defendant evidence is not taken on record. It is stated that the next date of bearing before the Trial Judge is 06.02.2016. One more last opportunity shall be granted to the defendant to lead his defence. The Trial Judge shall fix a date of hearing on which date witnesses should be present for leading their examination in chief as also for their cross examination. It is also relevant to note that inspite of service, the plaintiff / respondent has not appeared before this Court. This order is passed subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Petition disposed of with the above said irections.
INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 03, 2016 gb