MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHIKHLI Vs. AJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.

(2.) The petitioner-Municipal Council, Chikhli, has filed the instant petition challenging the order dtd. 5/12/2019 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana, below Exhs 87 and 88 in Special Civil Suit No. 3/2016. By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the trial Court has rejected both the applications filed by the petitioner.

(3.) It so happened that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.60,19,750.00 for carrying out necessary survey for Chikhli town. In response to summons the defendants appeared but failed to file written statement. Accordingly, the suit proceeded without written statement. The respondent who is the plaintiff before the trial Court had filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The chief examination was concluded on 6/1/2018. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application seeking to set aside the order of "no written statement". The said Application came to be allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.7,000.00. The written statement was accordingly taken on record. However, the petitioner failed to cross-examine the respondent and on 15/10/2018, the petitioner sought adjournment to cross-examine the petitioner. However his request came to be rejected. The petitioner therefore partly cross-examined the respondent. It appears that the petitioner's request for adjournments followed thereafter. Ultimately on 1/12/2019 the application seeking adjournment to cross-examine the respondent came to be dismissed and order of "no cross-examination" was passed. Thereafter, the respondent closed his evidence on 15/12/2018. The matter was kept for evidence of petitioner, however, the petitioner did not remain present. On 25/4/2019, the petitioner applied for setting aside "no cross order". The said Application came to be allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,500.00 to be deposited forthwith, so also to cross-examine the respondent who was present before the trial Court, It appears that the petitioner did not comply with the said order as well but sought application for extension of time to deposit the costs. On the next date i.e. 27/6/2019, the petitioner filed yet another application seeking extension of time to comply with the order directing it to deposit the costs and to cross-examine the respondent. Similarly, such applications came to be filed thereafter. On 26/6/2019 the petitioner appears to have filed two applications - one seeking permission to deposit the costs and another seeking condonation of delay to deposit the costs.