GULAB SINGH Vs. DHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sum of Rs. 30/ - was awarded as costs to the defendant opposite party on February 10, 1982 as the plaintiff petitioner did not file the list of his witnesses nor his witnesses were present in the court while the case was fixed for recording his evidence on that date. On the next date fixed in the case i. e. February 22, 1982 the plaintiff prayed for further time to produce his evidence and to make payment of costs. The time was allowed with consent of the learned counsel for the defendant. Similarly, time was again allowed to the plaintiff for producing his evidence and for payment of costs on April 24, 1982. The case was then fixed for July 29, 1982 and on this date the plaintiff again asked for an adjournment, but the defendant objected to it on the ground that the earlier costs had not been paid. The plaintiff was prepared to make part payment of the sum of Rs. 20/ - but the learned counsel for the defendant was not prepared to accept incomplete payment of the amount of costs. In these circumstances, the trial court closed the evidence of the plaintiff.

(2.) IN this revision petition the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the plaintiff does not desire to examine any other witness except the plaintiff himself and he is prepared to pay costs of Rs. 30/- which were awarded on Feb. 10, 1982 and any other amount of costs which the court may consider necessary to impose for the adjournment of the case on July 29, 1982. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on July 29, 1982 the plaintiff had only Rs. 20/- with him and as such he prayed merely for a short time for making payment of the remaining part of the amount of costs, but the trial court took a very stringent view of the matter and closed the plaintiff's evidence on that date. Leaned counsel for the defendant-opposite party relied upon the provisions of Section 35-B (l) C. P. C. and also placed reliance upon the full bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Anand Prakash V. Bharat Bhusan Rai (1) while supporting the order passed by the trial court.

(3.) IN Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon (8) their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under; - "rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief mearly because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. "