JASBIR SOBTI Vs. SURENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein had filed CS (OS) No. 883/2003. In this suit the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') had prayed for money decree. The suit was instituted on 5. 4. 2003. This suit has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5. 10. 2007, as according to the learned Single Judge, the plaintiff had not cared to take proper and appropriate steps for prosecuting the same. This appeal is preferred impugning the said order dated 5. 10. 2007. In order to appreciate as to whether the plaintiff was prosecuting the said suit with due diligence, we had summoned the suit file and have gone through the order-sheet. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire history of the case. We may state the events after the plaintiff amended the suit.

(2.) AFTER the plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint, time was granted to the defendant to file the written statement to the amended plaint and the matter was fixed by the Joint Registrar on 2. 3. 2006 for admission/denial of documents. On 2. 3. 2006, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appeared and the Joint Registrar adjourned the case to 22. 3. 2006. On that date as well as the next date, i. e. , 29. 3. 2006 the Joint Registrar/presiding Officer was on leave and case was renptified on 31. 3. 2006. On 31. 3. 2006, when the case was taken up though proxy counsel appeared for the plaintiff, nobody appeared on behalf of the defendants. The Joint Registrar also noted that as the written statement to the amended plaint was not filed, the pleadings were not complete and thus, no admission/denial could be carried out. The matter was directed to be placed before the Court on 4. 4. 2006, which was the date already fixed. On that date, counsel for the defendant made a statement that the defendant did not wish to file written statement to the amended plaint and the written statement already filed be taken as the written statement to the amended plaint also. On this statement learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he would be moving appropriate application under Order XII Rules 6 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing of the decree on the basis of purported admissions on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff thereafter moved that application in which notice was issued on 24. 4. 2006. This application, after reply, was heard on 8. 8. 2006 and was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there was no clear or unequivocal admission on the part of the defendant and "unnecessary judicial time has been wasted by a frivolous application. " While dismissing the application, the learned Single judge imposed cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the plaintiffs. In the suit it was directed that the parties to file original documents within eight weeks and the matter was directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar for admission/denial of documents on 5. 12. 2006. On 5. 12. 2006,12. 2. 2007, 24. 4. 2007 and 31. 7. 2007 the matter was taken up by the Joint Registrar. However, the Joint registrar was constrained to adjourn the matter on each date as nobody appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. On 31. 7. 2007, following order was passed:-

(3.) IT is, in these circumstances, when the matter came up before the learned Single Judge on 5. 10. 2007, the learned Single Judge was constrained to remark that the plaintiffs were not prosecuting the suit in right earnest. The order of the learned Single Judge forming this opinion is on the basis of the following reasons:- (a) Nobody appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs on four dates before the Joint Registrar to carry out admission/denial of the documents; (b) Though application of the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was dismissed as frivolous with cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which was to be paid to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, no receipt for payment of cost imposed by order dated 8. 8. 2006 was filed on record; and (c) Though vide order dated 8. 8. 2006, eight weeks' time was granted to the plaintiffs to file the documents, the documents were not filed within that time. Only on 5. 10. 2007 (the date on which the suit is dismissed) statement was made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that after the last date of hearing, i. e. , after 31. 3. 2007 documents were filed. Thus, the documents were not filed within the time stipulated. Though the documents were filed belatedly, only an oral plea was taken on 5. 10. 2007 that the same were not traceable earlier. However, no application for seeking extension of time to file those documents was moved. The learned Single Judge was, thus, constrained to observe:-