NIRMAL SINGH Vs. INDERJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before the defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on account of short-fall in court fee, the defendants had taken four dates to cross-examine PW2 and PW3 who remained present in Court. When the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, it diverted the attention of the Court to proceed to decide that application. That application was rejected by the trial court on 7.5.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff does not dispute that three opportunities for crossexamination were not availed. The two other dates were consumed by absence of the Judge on one date and the case having been transferred to the another court on the other date. However, the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed and the part deposition of PW2 and PW3 can no longer be treated as evidence in absence of cross-examination. The learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Bathinda, though has noticed that effective opportunities were granted to the plaintiff, but he failed to conclude his evidence. The trail court has closed the evidence for the reason that the case is more than 5 years old and falls within the Action Plan 2013- 2014 and the schedules fixed therein by this Court on its administrative side.

(2.) Though the conduct of the petitioner cannot be complimented, nor the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Bathinda can be castigated, yet interest of justice may require interference by this Court against an order which cannot be faulted except that trial court should not be obsessed by Action Plan set by this Court and should always remain alive to exercise its discretion judiciously and to carefully balance the interest of both the sides in order to secure the ends of justice. Action Plans set by this Court on its administrative side are to be followed and respected as an overarching scheme of speedy disposal of cases, but it is not intended that the plan should be used to thwart justice. If the impugned order is set aside to permit the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants-respondents, and therefore, I do not see any reason to issue notice to the opposite party, as they can be compensated by payment of costs.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, the hurdle of the impugned order dated 25.1.2014 is removed from the way of the plaintiff/petitioner. He would now have two effective opportunities to produce PW2 and PW3 for their crossexamination. The revision petition is allowed in the above terms, but subject to payment of INR 10,000.00 as costs to be paid to the defendants on the next date of hearing before the trial court.