BANSIDHAR ESTATE COLLIERIES AND INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five consolidated miscellaneous appeals. arise out of the judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, dated 3rd October, 1958, by which he dismissed the applications made by the appellants in five title suits under Order 23, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, to record a compromise alleged to have been reached lawfully between the parties.

(2.) This is a second attempt by the appellants to obtain from the Court an order recording the alleged compromise.

(3.) These cases have a checkered career and afford a flagrant example how the otherwise salutary provisions of law, designed to promote justice, may be misused by the litigants, if they so will, to obstruct the course of justice and to prevent the speedy termination of the litigations. It is most unfortunate that the connected title suits instituted as far back as 1948 have not yet been disposed of. It will be necessary to state here briefly the background of these applications under Order 23, Rule 3, to record the compromise. A batch of 246 title suits were instituted by different plaintiffs against the State of Bihar and others in 1948. In spite of the best efforts of the Court these cases could not be heard for nearly ten years. After several adjournments, for one reason or other, they were set down for hearing on 22-7-57. Two days before that date, i.e. on 20-7-57, the plaintiffs filed an application for adjournment on the ground of illness of the witnesses. But, as it was expected, it was rejected by the Court. On 22-7-57 they filed another application for adjournment for two months on the ground that an amicable settlement bad been reached. It was alleged that Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh of Ramgarh and his representatives negotiated for a compromise with the State of Bihar, that a compromise had been arrived at in respect of almost all the suits, that the terms and conditions were confirmed by the Raja Bahadur and that a formal order from the State to file a joint petition of compromise would be soon received. A copy of the terms of the agreement was also attached with the application. The lawyer representing the State was, however, ignorant of any such compromise and submitted before the Court that he had no such instruction from the Government Thereupon, the Court adjourned the hearing of the suits till 29-7-1957. On that date an application was filed on behalf of the State categorically denying the alleged compromise. On the same date the plaintiffs tiled applications under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code to record the compromise and pass a decree in accordance therewith. On 9-8-57 the plaintiffs filed several documents with a prayer that they be treated as part of the applications presented on 29-7-57 for recording the compromise. The Court wanted, naturally, to dispose of these applications as quickly as possible, and accordingly fixed 26-8-57 for the hearing, with a direction to the defendant to file a rejoinder if any, by 17-8-57. By this order the Court further specifically directed the parties that the compromise matter would be definitely and finally heard on 26-8-57 and that they should take all necessary steps within proper time. They were further directed to take immediate steps if they wanted to examine any witness on commission or to call for any document or to summon any. witness. The State complied with the order of the Court and filed a rejoinder on 17-8-57 controverting the allegations of the plaintiffs and denying that a compromise had been reached. On that date the plaintiffs also filed a list of witnesses to be summoned and deposited the sum of Rs. 1000 on account of expenses for the witnesses and Rs. 36 on account of process fee for summoning the witnesses. The list of witnesses was a long list containing the names of 48 witnesses, including some Ministers, Secretariat Officers, Members of the legislative Assembly and Members of the Parliament who were either in Calcutta or at Patna or at New Delhi. The deposit of Rs. 1000/- was inadequate, and the plaintiffs were accordingly directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 6000/- and also to file necessary written processes with correct addresses of the witnesses by 22-8-57. They were further directed to give an under-taking to the Court to deposit fourthwith any extra amount needed to meet the cost of the witnesses. The order of the Court made it clear that the summonses will issue after compliance by the plaintiffs of the directions of the Court. I may mention here that there was another batch of 33 title suits, and the allegation was that they were also compromised along with the said 246 suits, but the plaintiffs of most of these 33 suits did not file any application for recording the compromise. Two days before the date fixed for steps, i.e. on 20-8-57, the plaintiffs came forward with applications praying to issue notices to the plaintiffs of the other batch of 33 suits and to adjourn the hearing of the compromise matter for a month. The plaintiffs, it seems did not press these applications. On 22-8-57 the plaintiffs wanted to have photographs of the documents filed by the defendant, and the suits were accordingly adjourned to 24-8-57. In the meantime, on 23-8-57, the plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining an order of the District Judge passed in Miscellaneous Case No, 23 of 1957 staying the further bearing of the suits. The suits were accordingly adjourned to 15-11-57 awaiting Further orders of the District Judge. The District Judge subsequently vacated the stay order, and the Court was informed of it on 31-10-57. The Court then directed the parties to come ready for the hearing of the compromise matter on the date already fixed, i.e. 15-11-57, The parties were duly informed of this order of the Court. Four days before the date fixed for hearing, i.e. on 11-11-57, the plaintiffs filed a petition inviting order of the Court on their petition of date 20-8-57 for issuing notices to the plaintiffs of the batch of the other suits before the disposal of the applications for recording compromise. The Court passed an order that this application will be heard on the date fixed, i.e., 15-11-57. The plaintiffs, however, took no steps on that date, and the cases were adjourned till the next date for disposal of the application of date 20-8-57, The Court rejected the prayer to issue notices to the plaintiffs of the other suits and fixed 2-12-57 for hearing of the compromise matter. I may mention that the plaintiffs had not deposited the sum of Rs. 6000/-as ordered by the Court on 17-8-57, and the Court therefore, gave them another chance to deposit the sum within three days and to have the summonses to their witnesses served through special peons as the time left was too short. The Court took care to make it clear in the order itself that on failure to comply with the order of the Court the petition to summon witnesses would stand rejected. On 18-11-57 the plaintiff prayed for ten day's more time to deposit the amount of cost, and they were allowed time till 21-11-57. On that date the plaintiffs deposited Rs. 5000/- instead of Rs. 6000/-. They further did not file written processes for issue of summonses to the witnesses. The result was that summones could not be issued. On 25-11-57 the plaintiffs deposited the balance of Rs. 1000 towards the cost or witnesses and filed written processes. They further made a prayer for issue of dasti summons to the witnesses, and the Court allowed their prayer, of course, at their risk. On 29-11-57 the plaintiffs presented a revision application in this Court, being Civil Revision No. 971 of 1957, which came up for admission on 2-12-57, and the following order was passed by this Court: