High Court: Trial court's adjournments kept civil suit pending for 11 yrs

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 25

A civil suit was pending for more than a decade as a trial court kept granting adjournments to a party quite liberally, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. The Bench also asserted that a trial court showed “enough indulgence” to the defendants in the civil suit on free use of a passage.

The Bench also made it clear that the trial court could not have reviewed and recalled an earlier order on closing the defendants’ evidence and allowing them to lead further evidence. “The remedy open to the defendants was to file a revision petition against that order before High Court but they chose an easy option of moving an application before the trial court and the trial court, for the reasons best known to it, accepted the application.”

The matter was brought to the High Court’s notice after one of the defendants filed a revision petition against an order dated October 14 passed by a Samrala court, vide which an application for leading additional evidence filed by them was dismissed.

Justice HS Madaan asserted the defendants had been shown enough indulgence by the trial court to conclude their evidence by granting adjournments liberally. It was quite surprising that despite availing of 41 effective opportunities for leading evidence, the defendants were unable to conclude the same and the trial court had to close it by an order.

The trial court “strangely enough” accepted an application for recalling the order when it was filed. The case continued to be adjourned for the defendants’ evidence and they finally concluded it in August 2019. But they, thereafter, moved an application for additional evidence.

Justice Madaan asserted: “The defendants seem to have been taking the things in a very casual manner. The trial court has been granting adjournments to them quite liberally. In the process, the suit which was filed in 2010 is still pending despite passing of 11 years. Such types of litigants deserve to be dealt with firmly and strictly. It is not sweet will of a litigant to seek opportunity for leading further evidence as and when he feels like.” Dismissing the revision petition, the Bench added the trial court was fully justified and its order was quite detailed, well-reasoned and passed keeping in view the legal position on the subject.

‘Showed enough indulgence’

Justice HS Madaan asserted the defendants had been shown enough indulgence by the trial court to conclude their evidence by granting adjournments liberally. It was quite surprising that despite availing of 41 effective opportunities for leading evidence, the defendants were unable to conclude the same.