MAI CHAND Vs. ROHTASH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court passed the order 4th April, 2014 in favour of the petitioner and gave him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the defendants, but subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs. The copy of the order dated 4th April, 2014 was prepared by the Registry of this Court on 22nd April, 2014 and delivery of the same was taken on 28th April, 2014. However, the next date fixed before the trial court was 29th April, 2014. According to Mr. Achint, appearing for the petitioner, in absence of a certified copy, costs could not be deposited and further proceedings taken in terms of the order which has led to the passing of the impugned order dated 29th April, 2014 rejecting the substantive relief granted by this Court for cross-examination of the witnesses of the defendant for non-payment of costs imposed by this Court.

(2.) Mr. Achint submits that in the above circumstances, his client was unable to comply with the condition of deposit of costs on 29th April, 2014 in absence of certified copy of the order. Even if the version of the petitioner is unacceptable, which it may be, I do not think it would not do well to join issue on such a slippery explanation since any tough view taken on the story would defeat the underlying object of passing of the order on 4th April, 2014 and to achieve and preserve that end it may do better in upholding the order impugned which should not be allowed to be squandered only for the reason that costs were not paid. It is not difficult to understand the predicament of the trial court when faced with the situation presented by a fiat accompli in the face of non-compliance of the basic order passed by this Court. The trial court would not have been in a position to disturb the orders of the High Court by itself with such little time left for reaction or room for thought or to have ventured far enough to think of enlarging time for payment of costs set by this Court. I am sure that what the learned trial court did was what any trial court would have done in the circumstances. Therefore, it only this Court which can come to the rescue of the petitioner, if it thinks best in the interest of justice, to enlarge time fixed by it to do acts and things directed to be done. I have no doubt that the petitioner has to some extent taken undue advantage of the situation and has showed lack of due diligence examined from the perspective of the dates:

(3.) Keeping in view the overall interest of justice in this case and the reasons furnished for non-compliance of the order with respect to deposit of costs, this court again intervenes. After all, the petitioner has been unable to cross-examine the witnesses in attendance on the aforesaid day, much to their inconvenience and to the inconvenience of the court. To say a few words on the reasoning of the learned trial Judge in rejecting the application. She has not found any weight in the submissions of the counsel for the plaintiff, which have not inspired confidence in the Court and this is especially true when on 15th April 2014 after the passing of the order by this Court the plaintiff filed an affidavit in the court a quo stating that the revision petition filed by him in the High Court had been allowed then he should have taken expeditious steps accordingly in terms of the order. If the counsel was aware of the decision in the revision then he would be deemed to be aware of the condition imposed by this Court and there has been failure to avail the opportunity granted. The trial Court may be correct in its reasoning but looking to the foundation of the order dated 4th April, 2014 built on dispensing substantial justice to the plaintiff and to avoid serious injury and defeat the ends of justice, this Court is impelled by force of circumstances and the cause of justice to take a soft view and not to foreclose the cross-examination forever and therefore the petitioner is granted not quite deservedly an extension of time to comply with the order dated 4th April, 2014 and to do so on and by the next date already fixed by the learned trial Court i.e. on 23rd September, 2014. To that extent time granted earlier stands enlarged.