Dismissed¶30

H.Laxmi v. Kanti Lal R. Desai

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2024WP227/811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP227 No. 811 of 2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 17/09/2024 by Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 08.08.2024 of 5th Additional District Judge, Durg in CS No. A/81/2015 refusing to reopen cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses under Section 151 CPC. Keywords: inherent powers; closure of cross-examination on 06.03.2018; plaintiff's witness closed 05.01.2019; more than 26 opportunities for producing evidence; delay of more than 6 years; no sufficient explanation; deliberate delay of trial; recall of witness; suit for recovery of money; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is huge delay in filing the application and no sufficient explanation has been offered in the application. ¶29

H.Laxmi Vs Kanti Lal R. Desai — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:36106

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 811 of 2024

¶6

1 - H.Laxmi D/o Shankar Aged About 46 Years R/o 234, Road 6b, Smriti Nagar, Junwani, Durg Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner.

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Kanti Lal R. Desai S/o Late Ranchhore Aged About 67 Years

¶10

2 - Jitesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Kanti Lal R. Desai Aged About 44 Years

¶11

3 - Manisha Patel W/o Jitesh Kumar Patel Aged About 39 Years.

¶12

All are R/o Plot No. 55/14 (Wrongly Mentioned As 5514), Babadip

¶13

Nagar, Supela Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner

¶16

: Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

17/09/2024

¶20

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of order dated 08.08.2024 passed by 5^th

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

Additional District Judge, Durg in CS No. A/81/2015 whereby, application preferred was by petitioner/defendant under Section 151 CPC for providing further opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff’s witnesses as the same was closed on 06.03.2018.

¶23

Facts of the case in brief are that on 27.08.2015 respondents/ plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for recovery of money. Thereafter, the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence on 16.05.2016 and opportunity of crossexamination of the plaintiff’s witnesses was closed on 06.03.2018. Thereafter the case was fixed for defendant’s evidence. Opportunity of defendant to cross examine the plaintiff was closed and the case was fixed for the remaining evidence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s witness was closed on 05.01.2019. The defendant/petitioner herein has availed more than 26 opportunities for producing evidence. After more than 6 years, the present application has been filed to reopen the case for cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses which was dismissed by the order impugned.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has adopted a hyper technical approach because the subject application ought to have been allowed for fair adjudication by affording an opportunity to the petitioner and prays to allow the petition.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶26

On perusal of order impugned, it is evident that the petitioner/defendant has taken more than 26 opportunities for defendant’s evidence though the plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 05.1.2019 and opportunity to cross

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

examine some of the plaintiff’s witness was closed on 06.03.2018. After more than 6 years, subject application has been filed with an averment that on 06.03.2018, due to unavoidable circumstances, counsel engaged by the petitioner/defendant could not cross examine the plaintiff’s witness. The learned trial Court assigned reasons that even after closure of opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness, the petitioner sought adjournment on various dates and after more than 6 years, the present application has been filed invoking inherent powers.

¶29

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is huge delay and no sufficient explanation has been offered in the application. Considering the manner in which the defendant sought time, it is vivid that he deliberately wanted to delay the trial. Therefore, no case is made out for recalling of the plaintiff’s witness for further cross examination. The impugned order is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶30

Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶33

Avinash

H.Laxmi v. Kanti Lal R. Desai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Laxmi v. Kanti Lal R. Desai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandal Singh Vs Chanda Bai

Balaram Manhar Vs Shyam Bai Koshle

Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs Shri Naresh Vishwakarma

Bodhram Rathiya Vs State Bank of India

Heerasingh Sahu Vs Gopal Das Hablani

N.t.p.c. Ltd. Korba Vs Union Of India and Ors.