RAM NATH MOGA Vs. SIN PRAKASH JAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is of the order dated 14.7.87 of thelearned sub-judge whereby he closed the evidence of the petitioner defendantin the suit. The petitioner thereafter filed an application seeking review ofthis order and stated that his counsel had noted a wrong date. He said benoted the next date as 14.8.87 instead of 14 7.87 The review applicationwas also dismissed as the learned sub-judge was of the opinion that it didnot fulfil the requisites of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) When this petition was filed there were certain objections likethat all the parties in the trial court had not been impleaded and certifiedcopy of the impugned order dated 14.7.87 had not been filed. There wasalso an objection that the petitioner should have filed a petition, if be wasso aggrieved, against the order dated 24.8.87 dismissing his review application. The last objection led to the filing of CM(M) 204/88. In the firstpetition CR 91/88 the petitioner filed two applications, one under Order I,Rule, 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other under Section 5 of theLimitation Act. Both the petition as well as applications have been opposed.Mr. Sethi appearing for the first respondent has correctly pointed out thatas many as 13 adjournments were given to the petitioner to lead his evidenceand this court should not interfere in the discretion exercised by the trialcourt. The matter is also pending in the trial court since 1973. It was.however, submitted by Mr. Gupta that the petitioner is unwell and at therelevant time was in the USA where he had gone for his eye operation andfurther that the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the default of hiscounsel. But, then I find that his son Mr. P.N. Monga is himself anadvocate and attorney of the petitioner. Then, the argument has been thathe is an income-tax practitioner and is not well versed with the procedure ina civil court. Mr. Gupta says that he will examine only Mr. P.N. Monga,attorney of the petitioner on one date and that he will seek no furtheradjournment in the matter. Normally I would not have interfered in such amatter keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, but I find that thelearned subjudge did not consider specifically the plea of the petitioner thathis counsel had noted the wrong date.

(3.) In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the petition with thecondition that the petitioner will pay Rs. 500.00 as costs. Parties will appearbefore the learned sub-judge on 6.12.88 when the learned sub-judge will fix adate for recording the statement of 411 P.N. Monga. Petitioner will not beentitled to any further adjournment any score whatsoever. Costs awardedarc conditional.