MOHANLAL AGARWAL Vs. MAHESH CHANDRA AGARWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14/9/2015 by the defendant/tenant closing his right of cross -examination of plaintiffs.

(2.) Shri N.K. Gupta, learned senior counsel, contends that on the date fixed for cross -examination though the counsel for defendant/petitioner appeared and cross -examined the plaintiff, however, post -lunch he could not appear due to his appearance before another Court where already the date was fixed for cross -examination of witness of other case. However, sooner did he arrive in the Court at about 4:15 PM, by that time the trial court had closed the right of the defendant/petitioner to cross -examine the plaintiffs on the ground that the counsel was not available after lunch. It is submitted that a detailed application was filed explaining the facts and circumstances prevented him to appear post -lunch before the Court, however, the trial court oblivious of the bonafide justification offered, had closed the right of cross -examination. Hence, the trial court has committed a grave illegality and jurisdictional error having denied the valuable right of cross -examination.

(3.) Per contra, Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel for the respondents/landlord, contends that the conduct of the petitioner/defendant has not been above board in the matter of cooperation for expeditious disposal of the suit. It is contended that as many as nine opportunities, viz. on 3/3/2014, 10/4/2014, 27/11/2014, 23/1/2015, 24/2/2015, 12/3/2015, 11/4/2015, 19/6/2015 and 14/9/2015, have so far been afforded to the defendant/tenant for cross -examination. Though cross -examination was conducted, but in piece -mill and the same has stretched over a period of one year, as the affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC was filed on 21/8/2013 and up -till 14/9/2015 the cross -examination was not completed. Such recourse of dilatory tactics of avoidance of completion of cross -examination has led to unreasonable delay in disposal of the eviction suit. Therefore, considering the conduct of the defendant/petitioner, no indulgence is warranted. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Smitha Rani v/s. M.K. Girish, : (2009) 17 SCC 660 to bolster his submissions.