SURINDERJIT SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19,08 (for brevity 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 2.5.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana closing the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner by order. The examination-in-chief by tendering affidavit of PW-1 was completed on 2.5.2003. However, witnesses were to come again for cross-examination on 19.7.2003. The order passed by the Civil Judge reads as under:

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner at some length, I do not find any justification to interfere in the order dated 2.5.2003. The Civil Judge in his order has observed that the case was called at 12.40P.M. after it was earlier called repeatedly. Mr. Rajiv Kaushal, Advocate for the plaintiff-petitioner had requested for adjournment which was declined. Then he requested the Court to wait till 2.30P.M. for producing the evidence. The affidavit of one PW was tendered in evidence at 2.30P.M. and the copy of the same was supplied to counsel for the defendant-respondents who requested for an adjournment for the purpose. The Court again waited till 3.20P.M. for production of more witnesses but none turned up. It has also been observed that the issues were framed on 31.8.2001 and thereafter ten opportunities were granted to the plaintiff-petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioner in the instant case has not acted with care and seriousness which is expected from a litigant. The Courts are already flooded with litigation. The policy of the Code is reflected by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001. Unnecessary delay by way of amendment or for additional evidence has been completely discouraged. A vigilant litigant cannot be made to suffer in preference to a lazy one who had failed to adduce his evidence. If the records of learned Civil Judge of any Court are examined, it would be found that unnecessary adjournment and apathy shown by the litigant has resulted into much delay in disposal of cases. The time has come when a lazy litigant should be completely discourage by according preference to the vigilant one. The learned Civil Judge made remarkable efforts by taking up the case three times and still failed to secure the desired results. I am not inclined to show any sympathy to such a litigant. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order.

(3.) Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, however, has submitted that one opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for producing the evidence by imposing costs. On a consideration of the request made by the plaintiff- petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the Civil Judge to grant one opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to produce his entire evidence. The additional opportunity shall be subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs which shall be paid to the defendant-respon dents before accepting the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. The affidavit of plaintiff s witnesses concerning examination-in-chief may be filed before the Civil Judge before the date already fixed i.e. 19,7.2003.