STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ISHWAR DASS MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am at pain to see that the suit filed in the year 1977 for recovery of Rs. 6000/- had reached this Court and is pending for the last 30 years. It is such a long pendency which tends to shake the faith of a common litigant in the justice delivery system. Looking to the nature of relief claimed, the suit should not have been contested or at least some efforts should have been made on behalf of the State to settle/negotiate the claim. But a perusal of the record shows that the State seriously contested the suit for recovery of Rs. 6000/- filed by the plaintiff/respondent by filing appeal before the First Appellate Court and thereafter the present Regular Second Appeal. Such an approach of the State deserves no appreciation. But the courts of law sometimes are hapless being regulated by bounds of law. Sometimes the legal wrangles come in the way of the court in doing substantial justice, particularly, on the civil side of the litigation. It is in this background, I am proceeding to deal with this appeal.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , no substantial question of law was framed at the time of admission of appeal. However, from the facts on record, and with the assistance of the counsel for the parties, I frame following substantial question of law involved in this Regular Second Appeal :-

(3.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6000/- in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Ambala against the State of Haryana, on 16.7.1977. The suit appears to have been seriously contested by the State Appellant. However, the State failed to produce the evidence despite imposition of certain costs. On its failure to do so, the trial court vide its order dated 9.8.1982 struck off the defence of the defendant/State and consequently passed a decree for recovery against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 who are the appellants before this Court. There was another defendant No. 4. The suit was proceeded against the said defendant and came to be dismissed on 27.8.1982. When the suit was decreed against the present appellants on 9.8.1982, the order does not speak of drawing a decree-sheet. When the suit was finally dismissed against defendant No. 4 on 27.8.1982, the Court proceeded to pass the following judgment :-