Moirangthem Rajendra Singh vs The Manipur Administration and another

T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.

The petitioner as plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 5 of 1956 for damages against the respondents and claimed a sum of Rs. 2,205/4/1-. His case was that he was appointed as a constable on 1-9-47, was promoted as Head constable on 23-1-48 and again as an Assistant Sub-inspector on 23-1-150, but that on 13-8-55, the 1st respondent wrongfully dismissed him from service through the Inspector-General of Police, Manipur and hence he was entitled to damages. The respondents in their written statement stated that the petitioner held office at the pleasure of the respondents; that still departmental proceedings in which distinct charges were framed were held against the petitioner and he was given full opportunity to explain the charges and he was dismissed from service after such regular enquiry and hence he was not liable for any damages.

Issues were framed in the suit and the suit was posted for final hearing to 16-4-58. The petitioner was not ready on that date and applied for adjournment stating that he wanted to obtain a copy of his appointment order and produce it in Court. The Court granted his prayer and adjourned the case to 16-7-58, thereby giving him three months'' time. On that date, the petitioner again moved another application for adjournment on the ground that he had net been able to get a copy of the appointment order. But the Court refused to allow further time. The Court then proceeded under Order 17 R. 3 C.P.C. which provided that where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted failed to produce his evidence or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default proceed to decide the suit forthwith.

Neither the petitioner nor his pleader were ready to produce any evidence. In fact, I find that the petitioner had not produced any document in the suit or summoned any witness to give evidence for the hearing on 16-7-58. Thus, the Court had no material before it in support of the petitioner''s case that he was wrongfully dismissed from service and that he was entitled to damages. Hence, the suit was dismissed under Order 17 R. 3 C.P.C.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge. But the District Judge refused to interfere in appeal as he was satisfied that the lower Court acted rightly under Order 17 R.3 C.P.C. in dismissing the suit and in not granting further time to produce the document for which time was requested by the petitioner. Against the said order in appeal, the present revision petition has been filed.

What was argued in revision was firstly that Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C. should not have been applied by the lower Court under the circumstances of this case and further that in any event the prayer of the petitioner for further time to produce the appointment order should have been granted and the suit should not have been dismissed. I am afraid neither of these arguments can stand.

For the petitioner reliance was placed on the decision Sonaullah v. Sultan Jan, AIR 1962 J & K 21 , in which there is an observation that he words in Order 17 Rule 3

the Court may, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the suit forthwith

suggest that the case must be one where in spite of the default of a party, it must have been possible for the Court to come to a decision of the suit and the words "decide the suit" cannot be taken as tantamount to dismissing the suit for default and that it can only mean to decide the suit on merits on the material available before the Court.

No doubt the above observations in the decision would indicate that if a suit was dismissed in the presence of the plaintiff for the default of the plaintiff to produce evidence in support of his case, the dismissal may not be under O. 17 Rule 3. Rut the facts in that particular case showed that the suit was only in a preliminary stage where the plaintiff had been directed to deposit guardian''s fee within a certain time and he did not deposit it and the Court dismissed the suit on that ground even though the plaintiff and all the defendants except the minor defendant were present in Court.

The facts of that case as I have shown are quite different from the facts of the present case. In that case, the suit had reached only a preliminary stage, whereas in the case before us the suit had been posted for final hearing and the adjournment was granted to enable the petitioner to produce in evidence a certain document and he had defaulted in doing so. In a case like the present if he failed to produce the document for which time was granted to him, certainly the Court is justified in proceeding under Order 17 Rule 3. I cannot agree with the petitioner that Order 17 R. 3 will not apply to such a case.

With regard to the question whether it was a case where further time should have been given to the petitioner to produce the document instead of deciding the case under Order 17 Rule 3, I have no doubt that the lower Court was right in refusing to grant further time. One really does not understand why the petitioner wanted to produce a copy of the appointment order. His appointment was not disputed by the respondents. Further, the petitioner could have easily summoned the 1st respondent to produce the necessary documents which are in their possession. That also the petitioner did not do.

In point of fact, I find that the petitioner''s request for adjournment was not for producing the appointment order at all, but because he was not ready on that clay to proceed with the case. He had not produced any documents or summoned any witnesses. Actually, on the plaint as it stood, the petitioner had no case at all. He had simply stated that he was wrongfully dismissed without giving any details about the wrongful nature of the dismissal. It was admitted for the petitioner that without an amendment of the plaint, the case could not have been conducted by the petitioner. Thus, in point of fact, the adjournment was asked for not to enable him to produce the appointment order but because the petitioner had not taken any steps to get on with the trial of the case on that day. Under the circumstances, the lower Court was right in refusing to grant further time and in disposing of the case. There are thus no merits at all in this revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed with the costs of the respondents.