HARI KISHAN Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arjun Singhal on behalf of the plaintiff-revisionist and Sri Ram Mohan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Niraj Pandey, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for contesting defendant-respondent No. 2.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 pointed out to trial court's order dated 12.2.2002 and appellate order dated 7.9.2002 to show that the plaintiff is not a bona fide litigant and he has been guilty of not pursuing litigation promptly and thereby abusing the process of the Court and harassing the defendant.

(3.) It may be noted that the present revision arises out of Original Suit No. 400 of 1991 which has been filed for partition. Learned counsel for the revisionist admits that the son of the plaintiff-revisionist is an Advocate. This Court takes Judicial notice of the fact that whenever an Advocate is involved in the litigation, he takes to his head that the Court and judicial process is in his pocket. This cannot be tolerated. I am convinced that the plaintiff is guilty of abusing the process of the Court. The suit relates to the year 1991 but the plaintiff has not carried it bona fide. In view of the above, this Court would have refused to interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under Section 115, C.P.C. I am of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 3,1.2003, directing the defendant to lead evidence, once the Court has come to the conclusion that there was no evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff and that he was absent, the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the provision of Order XVII, Rule 2, C.P.C. The plaintiff and his counsel being absent and no evidence having been led on behalf of the plaintiff, the court below should have dismissed the suit in default.