LexISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD versus GOPAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 35 ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD v. GOPAL AND ORS. Special Leave Petition (Civil Nos. 14117 – 14118 of 2021) SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of law – Repeated adjournments – Respondent-plaintiff filed suit inter alia for eviction in 2013 – Petitioner-defendant’s right to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness was eventually closed in 2020 – Confirmed by High Court – Held: Ten times adjournments were given between 2015 to 2019 – Twice the adjournments were granted as a last opportunity and even cost was imposed – Trial Court and even the High Court continued to grant adjournments and as such contributed the delay in disposal of the suit – Adequate liberty was given to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness who never availed of the same and went on delaying the proceedings – Main suit is disposed of now – Petition dismissed. Administration of Justice – Justice delivery system – Delay – Grant of adjournments – Duty of Courts – Discussed. Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. (2011) 9 SCC 678 : [2011] 10 SCR 787; Babu Singh v. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579 : [1978] 2 SCR 777; Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand and Anr. (2013) 5 SCC 202 : [2013] 3 SCR 1146 – relied on. Case Law Reference [2011] 10 SCR 787 relied on Para 5.1 [1978] 2 SCR 777 relied on Para 5.2 [2013] 3 SCR 1146 relied on Para 5.3 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.14117-14118 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2021 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.P. No.107 and 108 of 2021. [2021] 9 S.C.R. 35 35 A B C D E F G H 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R. N. K. Mody, Sr. Adv., Shishir Kumar Saxena, R. N. Pareek, Prabhuddha Singh, Ms. Soumya Chaturvedi, Ms. Sharmila, Praveen Swarup, Advs. for the Appellant. The Order of the Court was passed by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Present is the classic example of misuse of the adjournments granted by the court. Present SLPs have been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.P. No.107 of 2021 and M.P. No. 108 of 2021 by which the High Court has dismissed the said misc. petition preferred by the petitioner – original defendant, confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 21.12.2020 closing the right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness. 2. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein filed suit for eviction, arrears of rents and mesne profit against one Ramchandra (now dead) and the present petitioner on 14.08.2013. Petitioner herein – defendant filed the written statement and issues were framed. On 12.05.2014 plaintiffs filed an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC which was objected by the petitioner and again the plaintiffs filed an affidavit on 07.03.2015. From 12.05.2015 till 02.12.2019 at least ten times the defendants sought adjournments which were granted by the court. Lastly the adjournment was given with cost as a last opportunity. Despite the same the petitioner – defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness. On 14.10.2019 time for cross examination was given with cost of Rs.5,000/- and with the condition that in any case they fail to cross examine, their right of cross examination would be treated as closed. Despite the same, the petitioner – defendant did not cross examine the plaintiff’s witness and therefore on 05.11.2019 their right was treated as closed. The petitioner approached the High Court by filing miscellaneous petition No.6283 of 2019 by which the right of the petitioner – defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness was closed. Though no leniency was required to be shown the High Court allowed the said petition by granting last opportunity to the defendants to cross examine the witness. Despite the same the petitioner – defendant did not even thereafter also cross examine the plaintiff’s witness. The suit was fixed for cross examination of plaintiff’s witness on 21.12.2020. On 21.12.2020 again A B C D E F G H 37 the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner – defendant filed an application seeking adjournment. Considering the fact that earlier number of adjournments were granted and the opportunity was given to the petitioner – defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness and despite the same the defendant fail to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2020 closed the right of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.