IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4595 of 2009
Haricharan Singh . ....Petitioner
Versus
1. Prakash Chandra Pandey.
2. Triloki Nath Pandey.
3. Prem Chandra Pandey.
4. Ramesh Chandra Pandey.
5. Trilok Singh.
6. Lakhbir Singh
7. Jodubir Prasad Chourasia.
8. Dinesh Lal,.
9. The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. ( TISCO).
10. Amar Jeet Kour.
11. Harjinder Kaur.
12. Kaljinder Kaur.
13. Majindra Kaur.
14. Sukhbir Singh.
15. Harcharan Singh ..Respondents
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. MERATHIA
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Laljee Sahay, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. G.M. Mishra, Advocate
--------
6/23.6.2010
Heard.
This writ petition has been filed against the order dated
8.6.2009, passed by learned Sub Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Title Suit
No. 494 of 1980 for recalling the order dated 17.4.2009, by which
evidence of plaintiff has been closed and also order dated 8.6.2009 ,
by which the prayer for recalling that order has been rejected.
Plaintiff-petitioner filed this suit in the year 1980. In spite
of sufficient opportunity, he did not conclude his evidence. However,
on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-, the learned court below allowed
him to adduce evidence. Even against such order, petitioner filed writ
petition being WPC No. 1720 of 2007, which was disposed of on
11.4.2007 by passing the following order.
” Mr. Laljee Sahay, appearing for the petitioner,
submits that the time granted by the court below by order
dated 19.2.2007 may be extended by three weeks from
today.
Mr. Mishra, appearing for other side, submitted that
in view of delaying tactics of the petitioner in this suit of
the year 1980, the court below directed the petitioner to
file all affidavited examination-in chief of the witnesses on
the next date i.e. 12.3.2007. He further submitted that
even after the said order was passed on 19.2.2007 about
two months have passed. It is also not known whether
petitioner has deposited the cost awarded by the court
below or not.
In the circumstances, one last opportunity is
granted to the petitioner to comply with the order dated
19.2.2007, by 2nd May, 2007.
This order is subject to payment of a further cost of
Rs.2,000/- ( Two thousand) by the petitioner to the
respondents apart from the cost awarded by the lower
court.
The cost is to be paid to the respondents in the
lower court.
It appears from the impugned order that petitioner was
given sufficient opportunities to adduce and conclude his evidence
but he failed to do so and ultimately the evidences were closed by
order dated 17.4.2009. Thereafter, defendants also adduced
evidence and at that stage a petition was filed for allowing the
petitioner to adduce further evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.
It is apparent that petitioner wants to delay the disposal
of the suit pending for about 30 years by now.
In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the
impugned orders in exercise of powers conferred on this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no
costs.
( R. K. Merathia, J)
Rakesh/