DILIP SINGHANIA Vs. BASANT SINGHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is a typical example of bad drafting, which is becoming more and more frequent and pronounced in these days: the Court is sometimes left to struggle by it-self to ascertain the wish of the petitioner or to imagine by itself his case: the valuable time of this Court could have been avoided had little attention been paid to it at the drafting and editing stage. This petition runs into as many as 13 pages with 27 paragraphs with numerous but unnecessary and repetitive facts pleaded therein and, that too, without chronological order: some extra efforts or proper application of mind and proper editing could have easily enabled the petitioner to compress all the relevant facts in hardly eight pages with some 15 paragraphs or so. It is, to say the least, irritating. Ordinarily, the easiest thing to be done by this Court in such a case is to dismiss the petition on the ground of incoherence, ambiguity and beyond one's grasp. Pleadings are required to be drafted in a simple, coherent and grammatically correct English, that too, in a chronological order as well as comprehensible manner, and should also be precise, comprehensive and to the point. But then, this Court, situated as it is, can hardly shirk its responsibility and wash off its hand by dismissing the petition no matter how bad the drafting is: after all, it is the innocent litigant, who is to suffer because of such inadequacy. I am constrained to say so with the hope that there can be some improvement in future. Against this unhappy prologue, let me try to understand what the petitioner wants and dispose of the case to the best of my ability in accordance with law. The petitioner is principally aggrieved by four orders passed by the trial court. Before proceeding further, a brief narration of the history of the case may be in order. The case apparently originated from a family dispute over inheritance of joint family properties left behind by their predecessors-in-interest. Title Suit No. 37(H) of 2005 was instituted by the petitioner against the respondent before the learned Munsiff/Shillong "for protecting of his interest over the passage and for restraining the respondent and others from using the said passage of land." The respondent contested the suit. The learned Munsiff by the order dated 7.11.2005 in Misc. Case No. 44(H) of 2005 issued an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with the use of the suit land by the petitioner pending disposal of the main suit. Subsequently, the respondent, according to the petitioner, as an after-thought and with a mala fide intention and to frustrate his suit and harass him, instituted T.S. Suit No. 22(SH) of 2005 before the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong concerning the matter directly and substantially in issue in the earlier case instituted by him against the same respondent. The respondent simultaneously filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1/2 CPC being Misc. Case No. 34(H) of 2005 and obtained an ex-parte interim injunction against the petitioner, This was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, Shillong, which by the order dated 17.2.2006, after calling for the records and after hearing the parties, settled the miscellaneous case on compromise by directing that only members of the families of the two parties should and could use the passage till disposal of the main suit.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner subsequently complained of violation of the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Shillong by the respondent by allowing commercial use of the passage in question. Be that as it may, the suit was remanded the appellate court to the trial court for further proceedings. Notice was issued to both the parties fixing 113.2006 for written statement. On 31.3.2006, when the petitioner did not file his written statement, the Court ordered that the suit should be proceeded ex-parte. After a delay of almost two years, the petitioner filed an application before the trial court for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 31.3.2006 together with an application for condonation of delay in filing the application, which are registered as Misc. Case No. 17(H) of 2008 and Misc. Case No. 18(H) of 2008 respectively. The trial Court allowed by the order dated 22.7.2008 condoned the delay, which was immediately challenged by the respondent by filing a review application being Misc. Case No. 48(H) of 2008, which was, however, rejected by the trial court by her order dated 3.9.2009. This was challenged by the respondent before this court in Civil Revision No. 55(SH) of 2009, and this Court by the judgment and order dated 30.5.2011 set aside both the orders condoning the delay and the setting aside of the exparte. It may, however, be noted that the trial court, notwithstanding the ex parte order, by the order dated 5.7.2011 allowed the petitioner to take part in the proceedings of the suit for cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent.

(3.) It may at this stage be noted that, on 22.3.2006, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 10 CPC before the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong for staying T.S. No. 22(H) of 2005 on the ground that the matter in issue in the suit was directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit of T.S. No. 37(H) of 2005 filed by him before the learned Munsiff/Shillong. The case was registered as Misc. Case No. 22(H) of 2006 whereupon notice was issued by the Court upon the respondent, who contested the application. However, the Presiding Officer of the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Shillong was not available from 20.4.2006 to 21.12.2006, and the new Presiding Officer, on being empowered to try the case, had passed an order on 21.12.2006 for informing the parties for appearance on 1.3.2007. However, the order was, according to the petitioner, subsequently changed by overwriting for informing the respondent only, but the Court had, nevertheless, observed in the order dated 26.3.2007 of Misc. Case No. 22(H) of 2006 that the petitioner had entered his appearance and fixed 12.4.2007 for show cause and hearing. According to the petitioner, he never appeared before the learned Assistant District Judge after 20.4.2006 when the Presiding Officer of the Court became unavailable nor did he appear after the new Presiding Officer had assumed the office as no notice was ever issued to him as stated earlier.