MURUGAN TEXTILES Vs. A RAJAGOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 2nd July 2008 passed by learned trial court.

(2.) THIS is the second occasion when the defendants (petitioners herein)have approached this Court seeking another opportunity for examination of witnesses. Vide order dated 7th May 2008, when the petitioner had earlier approached this Court, this Court directed that the petitioners be given one more opportunity by the learned trial court for examination of witnesses. This court also directed the learned trial court to provide one opportunity only to the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 for their evidence by adjourning the matter for a month and if on that date evidence is not recorded due to some reasons not attributable to the defendants the evidence shall be closed. This Court had emphasized that only one opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to complete the evidence. It was also clarified that it will be the responsibility of the defendants/petitioners to bring the witness to the Court. The petitioners had given an undertaking before this Court that they will produce their evidence at their own responsibility. The matter was fixed before the trial court for defendants' evidence on 1st July 2008. On that day, one witness was produced by the defendants and the same was examined and discharged. No other witness was brought by the defendants. Counsel for the defendants sought an adjournment for examining another witness who was not summoned or produced saying that the other witness understand only Tamil language so an interpretor will have to be appointed. Since the witness was not produced in the Court, the court could not form an opinion if the witness understood only Tamil. The trial court closed down the evidence of the petitioners/defendants in view of the order of this court. The petitioners, by way of instant petition, has again approached this court with a prayer that one more opportunity should be given to the defendants to give their evidence.

(3.) I consider that the instant petition filed by the petitioners is a gross misuse of the process of law. The petitioners who were supposed to bring all their witnesses to the court at their own responsibility, did not do so and instead sought an adjournment making an application for appointment of an interpretor on the plea that the witness intended to be examined only knows tamil. Neither the witness was produced nor the reasons were given as to why the witness was not brought to the court. If the witness had been produced on that day, the court would have examined the witness since there are not one but several Tamil knowing employees working in the District Court and anyone of them could have been called to act as an interpretor. Besides, there are numerous tamil knowing advocates in the District Courts. The trial court could have sought help from anyone of them in recording the evidence of the witness knowing only Tamil language. The interpretor could have been appointed then and there out of any of the persons present or available in the Court. Non production of the witness on the plea that he only knew Tamil was not justified.