Ram Nath Moga vs Siri Prakash Jain and Others

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) This revision is of the order dated 14.7.87 of the learned sub-judge whereby he closed the evidence of the petitioner defendant in the suit. The petitioner thereafter filed an application seeking review of this order and stated that his counsel had noted a wrong date. He said be noted the next date as 14.8.87 instead of 14 7.87 The review application was also dismissed as the learned sub-judge was of the opinion that it did not fulfill the requisites of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2) When this petition was filed there were certain objections like that all the parties in the trial court had not been imp leaded and certified copy of the impugned order dated 14.7.87 had not been filed. There was also an objection that the petitioner should have filed a petition, if be was so aggrieved, against the order dated 24.8.87 dismissing his review application. The last objection led to the filing of CM(M) 204/88. In the first petition Cr 91/88 the petitioner filed two applications, one under Order I, 10 of the CPC and the other u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Both the petition as well as applications have been opposed. Mr. Sethi appearing for the first respondent has correctly pointed out that as many as 13 adjournments were given to the petitioner to lead his evidence and this court should not interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial court. The matter is also pending in the trial court since 1973. It was. however, submitted by Mr. Gupta that the petitioner is unwell and at the relevant time was in the Usa where he had gone for his eye operation and further that the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the default of his counsel. But, then I find that his son Mr. P.N. Monga is himself an advocate and attorney of the petitioner. Then, the argument has been that he is an Income Tax practitioner and is not well versed with the procedure IN a civil court. Mr. Gupta says that he will examine only Mr. P.N. Monga, attorney of the petitioner on one date and that he will seek no further adjournment in the matter. Normally I would not have interfered in such a matter keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, but I find that the learned sub judge did not consider specifically the plea of the petitioner that his counsel had noted the wrong date.

(3) In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the petition with the condition that the petitioner will pay Rs. 500.00 as costs. Parties will appear before the learned sub-judge on 6.12.88 when the learned sub-judge will fix a date for recording the statement of 411 P.N. Monga. Petitioner will not been titled to any further adjournment any score whatsoever. Costs awarded are conditional.

(4) Record of the trial court **** back.