C.R No. 6750 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R No. 6750 of 2007
Decided On : 06.10.2009
Manmohan Joshi
...Petitioner
versus
Prem Chand Joshi
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present : Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Bakshi, Advocate,
for the respondent.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The challenge in the present petition is to the order
passed by the learned First Appellate Court on 21.08.2007,
whereby application for restoration of suit dismissed in default on
02.03.2004, was dismissed.
The plaintiff has filed suit for possession on
01.10.1994 on the basis of title by sale deed against his brother.
The suit was dismissed on 02.03.2004 when the plaintiff did not
appear. An application for restoration was dismissed by the trial
Court on 19.01.2006 on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to
lead his evidence even though 35 effective opportunities were
availed by him. Such order has been affirmed in appeal as well.
C.R No. 6750 of 2007 -2-
It is stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that
a separate suit filed by the defendant challenging the sale in
favour of the plaintiff is pending in second appeal before this
Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that some
time was taken by the plaintiff to lead his evidence for the reason
that the matter remained pending for adjudication of an
application filed by the defendant and that if one opportunity is
granted to the petitioner, he shall conclude his entire evidence
and also suitably compensate the defendant for the delay in
leading his evidence.
The plaintiff is claiming possession on the basis of sale
deed. Delay in leading his evidence is at his own part. Plaintiff is
not gaining by not producing evidence. However, the fact remains
that the proceedings in the Court cannot be adjourned on slight
pretext. The proceedings before the Court have to be concluded
expeditiously. Therefore, while the plaintiff was not to gain by
delaying the proceedings but the fact that the plaintiff has not
concluded his evidence inspite of numerous opportunities granted
to the plaintiff, does not speak high of the plaintiff. However, the
matter in respect of title of the plaintiff is already pending
adjudication. Therefore, it will be appropriate if the petitioner is
granted one opportunity to lead his entire evidence subject to
payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. If the petitioner fails to lead
evidence on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court and to
C.R No. 6750 of 2007 -3-
pay the costs, his evidence shall be deemed to be closed.
The parties through their respective counsel are
directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 10.11.2009
on which date the plaintiff shall pay the costs of Rs.1000/-. On
such payment alone, the Court shall fix a date for the plaintiff to
lead his evidence.
OCTOBER 06, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) shalini JUDGE