VIJAYA G HOMBALE Vs. SABEENAWAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has filed these writ petitions against the common order dated 02.03.2017 whereby the trial Court has dismissed the applications-IA.No.7 filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case on plaintiff's side and defendant's side so as to cross examine PW.1, IA.No.8 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC to recall PW.1 for cross examination and IA.No.9 filed under Section 151 of CPC to postpone the pronouncement of judgment in OS.No.32/2014.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money of a sum of Rs.51,91,780/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Only) as against the petitioner-defendant. The defendant has filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The matter was posted on 18.01.2017 for settlement. On that day, the settlement was not possible. Therefore, the matter was posted to 01.02.2017. Again on 01.02.2017, time was prayed on behalf of the petitioner. The same was refused and the evidence of the defendantpetitioner was taken as nil and posted the matter for arguments of the defendant was taken as not addressed and the arguments of the plaintiff was heard and on that day itself, the case was posted for judgment on 14.02.2017. Hence, the present petitioner-defendant has filed three applications stated supra stating that during the year 2015, the defendant was in Dubai and returned to India only in the year 2016. She could not follow the court proceedings. Hence, she could not cross examine PW.1. It was only a bona fide mistake. She has a good case on merits. Therefore, she sought for a last opportunity to proceed with the case. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing objection. The trial Court considering the aforesaid applications and the objections by the impugned order dated 02.03.2017 has dismissed IA.Nos.7 to 9 and posted the matter for judgment on 07.03.2017.

(3.) This Court while issuing emergent notice on 14.03.2017 has granted interim stay for a period of eight weeks. Subsequently, from time to time it was extended. In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 AIR(SC) 2039, the interim order granted expires automatically after six months. Therefore, the respondent has filed an application-IA.No.1/2018 for vacating of stay.