CHAMMI BEGUM Vs. NOOR BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff Chammi Begum filed the suit through Smt. Shahida Aqueel, her attorney seeking permanent injunction and restraint from dispossessing the Plaintiff/ Petitioner from the suit premises bearing Municipal No. 1237-1238, Haveli Hissamuddin, Bali Maran, Delhi against Noor Bano, Asfia Shees and Afsha Saeed. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21st April, 2014 whereby the right of the Petitioner as Plaintiff to lead evidence was closed and the order dated 10th November, 2014 whereby the review petition was dismissed..

(2.) Before dealing with the issue whether the right to lead Plaintiff's evidence was rightly closed or not it would be relevant to note certain order.

(3.) The issues were settled on 24th October, 2011 and the matter was listed for filing of the Plaintiff's evidence with advance copy to the opposite counsel atleast 15 days prior to 30th January, 2012. On 30th January, 2012 the Plaintiff sought an adjournment to file the Plaintiff's evidence. Thus one last and final opportunity was granted and the matter was listed on 29th March, 2012. Even on that date no Plaintiff's evidence was filed and none was present on behalf of the Plaintiff. Since the learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that he had received an advance copy of the affidavit of the evidence of Plaintiff the matter was listed for 4th May, 2012, on which date the evidence by way of affidavit of Smt. Shahida Aqueel, attorney of Chammi Begum was filed as PW-1. The matter was listed on 17th July, 2012 for the statement and cross-examination of Smt.Shahida Aqueel when she was present however, adjournment was sought on the ground that PW-1 had not brought original documents. The request was allowed subject to cost of Rs.200/- to be paid to the Defendants. On the next date, that is, 27th August, 2012 it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Defendants that the copies of the original documents had not been filed by the Plaintiff and even the cost imposed vide order dated 17th July, 2012 had not been paid. The learned Trial Court directed the Plaintiff to supply the copies before the next date and listed the matter for statement and cross-examination of PW-1 on 9th October, 2012. On 9th October, 2012 copies of documents were supplied and the matter was further adjourned to 21st December, 2012. On 21st December, 2012 affidavit of PW-1 was tendered and last and final opportunity was granted to the Defendants to cross-examine PW-1, subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the Plaintiff before the next date. On 5th March, 2013 cross-examination of PW-1 was deferred as the main counsel for the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was not available due to personal difficulty and thus subject to cost the matter was listed for cross-examination of PW-1 on 20th March, 2013. On 20th March, 2013 adjournment was sought on behalf of the Plaintiff on the ground that the PW-1 was not available due to the Board Exams of her son which request was allowed and the matter was listed for 26th April, 2013. On 26th April, 2013, since cost had not been paid by the Defendant and the Plaintiff also sought adjournment the matter was adjourned to 29th May, 2013. On 29th May, 2013 PW-1 was not available due to personal difficulty and thus the Trial Court granted one last and final opportunity to the Plaintiff, subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- and the suit was listed for statement and cross-examination of PW-1 on 27th August, 2013. Again on 27th August, 2013 an adjournment was sought on behalf of the Plaintiff on the ground that PW-1 was unwell. Further affidavit of PW-2 Shabana Nafees was filed. Subject to additional cost of Rs.1,000/- last and final opportunity was granted to the Plaintiff for statement and crossexamination of PW-1 and PW-2 on 30th September, 2013. On 30th September, 2013 on joint request the matter was adjourned however, the cost as directed was not paid by the Plaintiff. On 7th December, 2013 since the learned Presiding Officer was on leave, the suit was listed on 20th March, 2014. On 20th March, 2014 the learned Judge noted that PW-1 who was present in person seeks time to engage a new counsel although no explanation was given as to why the Plaintiff has waited till that date for engagement of the counsel. Considering the age of the Plaintiff one more opportunity was granted to the Plaintiff to lead evidence and it was directed that if on the next date of hearing, the Plaintiff failed to pay the cost or to lead PE, the suit would be dismissed. On the next date, that is, 21st April, 2014 again the Plaintiff sought adjournment for leading evidence on the ground that the counsel had been recently engaged and he needs time to inspect the case file.