Closure of evidence

Two forums of different jurisdiction concluded against the petitioner i.e. complaint under provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 which was dismissed followed by dismissal of suit on the original side along with first appeal and second appeal accordingly

In the present petition the petitioner attempted to take refuge under the purported misapplication of the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. by the courts below by stating that the trial court failed to record evidence of the petitioner

Held: The judgment of the trial court was passed after dismissal of the adjournment application

The application was dismissed after recording reasons that on the previous date (previous to the dismissal of last adjournment application) the petitioner also moved an adjournment application which was allowed as a last chance, despite availing earlier opportunities

On the fateful date neither the petitioner being plaintiff in the suit nor his counsel appeared but an adjournment application was sent stating that the petitioner was suffering from fever

On the same day after dismissal of the adjournment application the judgment was announced and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed being devoid of any evidence

The petitioner being aggrieved of decision under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. preferred an appeal but did not take ground that under the given circumstances Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. was misapplied

Scope of section 100, C.P.C. and that too against the concurrent findings of the original civil court and the first appellate court was limited

Supreme Court did not interfere in the concurrent findings of three courts below who had recorded the non-serious attitude of the petitioner in recording the evidence on a number of occasions, particularly when the petitioner had failed to point out if he had categorically taken this ground before the two appellate forums below

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances, and leave was refused.

Petitioners had made every effort to prolong and delay the partition of landed property without any just and reasonable cause

Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were well reasoned

Petitioners had been provided ample and sufficient opportunity of pleading their case in a reasonable and sufficient manner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Trial Court passed order for dismissal of suit for want of evidence but same was recalled on appearance of plaintiff in person and final opportunity to lead evidence was granted

Plaintiff appeared before the Court and submitted that she could not engage a counsel and she was not in a position to lead her evidence

Trial Court closed evidence of plaintiff and dismissed the suit

Validity

Plaintiff availed ample opportunities to lead her evidence but she could not produce the same

Plaintiff even on the last date when the suit was fixed for a future date in her presence instead of producing evidence pleaded that she wanted to engage a counsel

Conduct of plaintiff did not warrant any concession nor a lenient view in her favour, in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Impugned order had been passed in a hasty manner without providing a reasonable time to the petitioner for production of his evidence

Rights of the parties should be decided upon merits rather than dismissing the matter on technical grounds

Trial Court had committed material irregularity while passing the impugned order, in circumstances

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside

Reference petition should be deemed to be pending before the Referee Court and a single opportunity to adduce evidence was to be provided to the petitioner

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Trial Court was not bound before passing final order to direct the plaintiff to lead evidence subject to payment of costs

Passing or non-passing order to produce evidence subject to costs was discretion of the Court

Exercise of said discretion could not be interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction

Conduct of plaintiff remained contumacious as he never produced witnesses in the Court despite availing last and final opportunity

Trial Court was justified to pass order under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Revision was allowed, accordingly. [Paras. 12, 13, 14 & 15 of the judgment]

Final adjournment was granted to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence with a warning that no further opportunity would be given

Request for adjournment on behalf of plaintiffs was opposed by the defendants

Plaintiffs again failed to produce witnesses on the date fixed by the Trial Court

Contumacious conduct of plaintiffs was left with no option but to close their right to produce evidence

Plaintiffs had been cautioned by the Trial Court on six different occasions that it would be the final opportunity to produce evidence

Case was adjourned ten times for recording evidence of plaintiffs

High Court observed that Court should not have granted further adjournments in circumstances

Plaintiffs had made impossible for the Trial Court to make further progress in the suit

Order XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. could be pressed into service even where a party who was granted time to perform some act not only failed to do so but was also absent on the date to which the hearing was adjourned

No illegality or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Trial Court closed evidence of defendants except the statement to be recorded by the attorney and witnesses who were to be summoned by the Court

Contention of defendants was that Trial Court had provided only two or three opportunities for production of their evidence

Validity

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was self-speaking

Defendants despite availing several opportunities failed to produce evidence

Trial Court was constrained to close the evidence of defendants which was to be produced by them except the statement of attorney and witnesses to be summoned by the Court

Impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality

Case could not be kept pending for an indefinite period

Adjournments could not be granted without any sufficient reason

Parties were to be vigilant and ready to produce evidence without unnecessary delay

Adjournments could only be granted for sufficient cause and that also with costs if so deemed proper by the Court

Hearing of the suit should continue from day to day and adjournment for recording evidence only be made for the reasons to be recorded by the Court

Court had power to decide the suit under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. if the party failed to produce evidence or to cause attendance of his witnesses

Trial Court had to keep the scale of justice even in exercising the discretionary powers while granting adjournments in the proceedings and discourage practice and tactic of procrastination which would result into miscarriage of justice

Courts below had not violated any provisions of law while passing the impugned orders

Appeal was dismissed.

Right to close evidence under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. shall not be exercised unless various opportunities had been granted to the parties who had failed to produce evidence.

Nothing was on record that Trial Court had exercised its discretion capriciously or arbitrarily while passing the impugned order

No infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional defect was pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

When plaintiff was not ready with his evidence then Trial Court under O.XVII, R.1(3), C.P.C. could close his evidence so as to get to the next stage in the trial

Evidence of plaintiff was rightly closed by the Trial Court

Revision petitioner was not bound to furnish certified copies of judgments along with petition

Benefit of S.12 of Limitation Act, 1908 could not be extended to the plaintiff

Court below was bound to provide a copy of impugned decision within three days thereof which might be uncertified

Plaintiff should have approached the court below to obtain copy of impugned decision

Once application was made to the court below and there was failure to provide copy within prescribed period of three days then revision petitioner could have sought condonation of delay on the ground that it was beyond his control to obtain a copy

Revision petitioner had not filed an application before the court below for compliance of mandate of second proviso of S.115(1), C.P.C.

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Three opportunities with warning and imposition of fine were granted but plaintiff failed to produce oral as well as documentary evidence

Trial Court invoked penal provisions of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.

When a party was directed to do some act for progress of the proceedings of a suit and that party had failed to comply with the order of court then court had equal power to proceed with the suit forthwith

No reason had been shown as to why on the last two dates of hearing the evidence was not available

Trial Court was competent to pass an order under O.XVII, R.1, C.P.C.

When no sufficient cause was shown for grant of adjournment then court should proceed with the suit forthwith

Trial Court granted sufficient opportunities before invoking the penal provisions of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff was that due to inadvertent mistake he and his counsel did not appear in the Court for recording evidence on the specific date of hearing

Validity

Suit was dismissed without dilating upon the merits of the case as averred in the pleadings of the parties

Order XVII, R.3, C.P.C. was not mandatory

Trial Court was supposed to proceed to the suit on merits in the light of entire material on record and after hearing arguments of the parties

Impugned judgment had been passed by the Trial Court hurriedly in a slipshod manner without affording opportunity of hearing or argument to the parties

Provisions of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. were penal in nature and in order to attract the said provisions time must be granted by the Trial Court to a party for doing certain acts

Time must have been granted at the request of defaulting party

If time was not granted at the instance of a party against whom order was required to be made then penal provision of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C would not apply

Non-appearance of plaintiff before the Trial Court for recording of his evidence on the specific date was not deliberate

Matters should be decided on merits rather than on technical knockouts

Judgment without discussing merits of the case could not be termed a "judgment on the merits'

Court might proceed with the suit notwithstanding either party failed to produce evidence

Where a party to suit failed to do a specific act then next step required to be taken should be initiated

Word "forthwith" was meant without any further adjournment yet it could not be equated with the words "at once pronounce judgment"

Judgment pronounced by the courts below were prima facie `void'

Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the sole ground of being time barred without discussing or considering the contents of affidavit along with application under S.14 of Limitation Act, 1908

Appellate Court had exceeded beyond limits prescribed by law and judgment passed by it was coram-non-judice and inoperative

Orders passed by the courts below were not sustainable which were set aside

Trial Court was directed to proceed with the suit after providing due opportunity to the parties to produce evidence in accordance with law

Revision was disposed of in circumstances.

Plaintiff failed to adduce his evidence despite grant of last and final chance and imposition of cost upon him for failure to lead evidence

Trial Court adopted all the possible measures to compel the plaintiff to lead evidence

Plaintiff was not serious to pursue his cause and failed to appear before the Trial Court to step in witness box as well as produce his witnesses

Trial Court was left with no option but to close side of plaintiff

Validity

Trial Court was justified in closing evidence of plaintiff

Law would favour the vigilant and not the indolent who was not serious to pursue his cause

Trial Court was bound to afford adequate opportunity to the concerned party to establish its claim by adducing evidence

Trial Court was competent to decide the fate of the suit under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. if party failed to avail such opportunity

No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Statement of plaintiff was recorded and adjournment was sought for cross-examination but Trial Court dismissed the suit straightaway

Validity

Trial Court should have afforded an opportunity for production of evidence by imposing cost on the plaintiff or could close the evidence of plaintiff and direct the defendants to produce evidence

Trial Court was required to give issue-wise findings on the basis of available evidence on record and had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit straightaway in a slipshod manner

Order XVII, R.3, C.P.C. did not provide that in case evidence was absent on a date then suit was to be decided against the party by way of penalty

Impugned orders passed by both the courts below were set aside and suit was restored

Case was remanded for recording rest of the evidence of plaintiffs without any adjournment

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Defendant was present but Trial Court struck off right of evidence and did not direct whether he wished to record his statement

Trial Court was bound to have asked the defendant present in the court to depose

Trial Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not doing so

Impugned judgments and decrees were result of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record

Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh after giving opportunity to the defendant to produce evidence

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Applicants had failed to point out any unavoidable/compelling circumstances or reasonable grounds due to which they could not produce evidence

Right of evidence of the applicants was rightly closed by the Trial Court

Impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Application for seeking adjournment was moved but Trial Court closed the evidence and rejected application for setting aside ex parte decree

Validity

Applicant was present before the Trial Court when his evidence was closed

Trial Court was bound to offer the applicant to appear in the witness box in order to get his statement recorded

Trial Court had failed to record statement of applicant who was present when penal provisions of O. XVII, R.3, C.P.C. were exercised

Provisions of O. XVII, R.3, C.P.C. could not be applied in circumstances

Trial Court had failed to fulfill its obligation and committed illegality and irregularity while closing evidence of applicant

Impugned judgments were set aside

Case was remanded to the Trial Court to the extent of recording of testimony of applicant by providing one last opportunity whereafter by recording evidence of other side the application be determined in accordance with law

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Applicant was afforded numerous opportunities to produce evidence and respondent did not raise any objection on the adjournment granted by the Trial Court

When no objection was taken on the preceding date with regard to adjournment of case, O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. could not be invoked on the next falling date

Law required disposal of case on merits and not on technicalities

Impugned orders passed by the courts below were set aside

Application for setting aside ex-parte decree would be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court who should afford only one fair opportunity to the applicant for production of his entire oral as well as documentary evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Trial Court had jurisdiction to pass appropriate order when court order had not been complied with and no progress could be made due to the plaintiff

Court could proceed with the suit forthwith when no sufficient cause was shown for adjournment

Suit could be validly dismissed under O. XVII, R.1, C.P.C.

No reason had been shown for non-production of evidence

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Provision of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. was not the only provision for proceeding with the suit forthwith but sub-rule (3) of R.1 of O.XVII, C.P.C. was also available for the Trial Court to proceed with the suit forthwith

Many opportunities were given to the plaintiff on his request for production of evidence but he failed to produce the same

Court had powers to proceed with the suit forthwith when same was fixed for specific proceedings and party to the suit had neglected or intentionally disobeyed its order

Trial Court had power to proceed forthwith with the suit when plaintiff after exhausting sufficient opportunities failed to produce evidence

Plaintiff was bound to offer sufficient reason for non-production of evidence for each and every date of hearing he sought adjournment

Trial Court was justified in invoking the penal provisions which were available with it under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. as well as O.XVII, R.1, Sub-rule (3), C.P.C. when no justification was offered by the plaintiff for non-production of evidence

Appeal was dismissed with costs throughout.

Case was not adjourned on the request of plaintiff for the date when provision of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. was invoked but because of strike by the Bar

Trial Court instead of simply dismissing the suit ought to have gone through the plaint and written statement and given its findings on merits

Impugned order and decree were set aside and matter was remanded to the Trial Court

Plaintiff was directed to produce his evidence on the date fixed and not to seek any adjournment in the case

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Trial Court instead of making recourse to O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. should have adjourned the case imposing cost on the plaintiffs

Trial Court was supposed to pass a speaking and well-reasoned order

Material brought on record by the parties should be given due consideration before closing evidence

Trial Court did not go through the pleadings of the parties

Plaintiff who was present before the court should have been asked to come in the witness box to record his own statement and thereafter case should have been adjourned for defendant's evidence or for hearing argument and then judgment given on each issue

Order XVII, R.3, C.P.C. did not at all provide that in case evidence was not produced on the fixed date the suit would be decided against the defaulting party by way of penalty

Trial Court had dismissed the suit without touching merits of the same

Trial Court had acted under the procedure provided in O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. but suit had been dismissed adopting the procedure provided in O.IX, R.8, C.P.C

Words "proceed to decide forthwith" in O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. did not mean to decide the suit forthwith or "dismiss the suit forthwith"

Impugned judgment was not only illegal but was without lawful authority which was set aside

Case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision on merits after recording evidence of both the parties

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Private defendants and official defendant were proceeded against under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. on different dates of hearing by the Trial Court

Private defendants filed appeal wherein official defendant was not impleaded

Official defendant moved a petition under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C. which was dismissed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Defendants were officials of the government having no independent claim or interest in the suit property

Proceedings of Trial Court under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. were wrong in the eye of law

Impugned order against the government splitting up defendants in two different sets was a mistake on the part of Trial Court

Interest or claim of private defendants to the suit property was not in clash with the government

Trial Court as well as Appellate Court must have not accepted private defendants as separate set of defendants from the government

Actual contesting party to the case was the government and not the private defendants

Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to afford Government a chance for filing written statement and then to resume the trial proceedings

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiffs were given last opportunity with notice under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. to produce complete evidence but they failed

Court had no other option but to dismiss the suit by invoking the provision of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C.

Impugned order was passed due to failure of plaintiffs to produce their evidence

Trial Court could dismiss the suit forthwith in such circumstances

Impugned order was appealable and remedy against the same was not the application for setting aside the said order

Plaintiffs wrongly preferred application for setting aside the impugned order whereagainst the proper remedy was the appeal

Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application for restoration of suit

Appeal filed before the Appellate Court was not only time barred but same was having no force of law

Order dismissing the suit under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. would be deemed to be a judgment on merits

Both the courts below had rightly non-suited the plaintiffs

Revision was dismissed in limine.

Contention of plaintiff was that District Bar was observing strike and no effective proceedings could have been taken and provisions of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. could not be applied

Validity

Party to a proceedings who had been held responsible to perform certain acts would be liable to be penalized in case of default on the part of such party

Court might proceed to decide the suit forthwith where party to a suit to whom time had been granted had failed to produce his evidence notwithstanding such default

Call of strike was taken as a cover

Counsel was bound to appear in the court when a matter was called and if same was not so possible then to make satisfactory alternative arrangements

Counsel was bound to act without fear or favour for just cause of clients diligently

Counsel could not escape from proceedings before a Court of law

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order

Revision was dismissed in circum-stances.

Plaintiff was to prefer the appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court before the High Court but he preferred appeal before the Addl. District Judge when the value of the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction was Rs. 50,00,000 mentioned by him in the plaint and was also evident from the decree sheet

Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court on 28-5-2012 and he preferred the appeal before the High Court on 18-12-2012 after dismissal/return of his appeal on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction which was barred by time

Counsel for the plaintiff could not give reasonable and plausible justification as to why the plaintiff preferred appeal before the Addl. District Judge knowing the fact that he had got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the same on account of having no pecuniary jurisdiction exceeding Rs. 10,00,000

Additional District Judge had rightly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

Appeal was dismissed in limine.

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Provisions of O. XVII, Rr. 1(3) & 3 were directory in nature as no penalty had been imposed upon non-production of evidence

Court might decide the case on the same day and it was for the court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record

Provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. were applicable when on the date previous to the date of final order an adjournment was sought by the plaintiff

When no objection was made to such adjournment by the other party, then it could not be presumed that the adjournment was granted on behalf of the party who sought the same

Request for adjournment on the date previous to that of final order was made by the counsel for plaintiff which was not objected to by the other side

Trial Court, without taking into consideration that on the previous date of hearing no objection was raised by the other side, invoked provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. and dismissed the suit without giving its issue-wise findings

Trial Court was bound to decide the case on the basis of material available on record and gave its findings issue-wise

Trial Court was not justified to close the right of evidence of plaintiff rather to decide the case on merits other than on technicalities

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh on merit after affording one last and final opportunity to produce evidence

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

Appellate Court exercised its discretion properly and allowed one opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence

No illegality had been committed by the Appellate Court and substantial justice had been done

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

No condition that request for adjournment must be made on the part of defaulting party for attracting the provisions of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. was found mentioned in the said provision

Court should proceed with the suit forthwith where sufficient cause was not shown for grant of adjournment

Previous date of hearing when evidence of plaintiff was not present was not given at his exclusive request

Provision of O. XVII, R.3, C.P.C. was not applicable in the present case

Frequent and liberal adjournments were granted to the plaintiff for production of his evidence which he failed to produce

Neither any ground had been given for indulgence in favour of plaintiff in the memorandum of appeal nor for the non-production of evidence on the day when same was closed

Conduct of plaintiff was result of negligence

Law would help those who were vigilant and not indolent

Expression "sufficient cause" had to be interpreted liberally in order to advance cause of justice but element of vigilance was required to be kept in mind

Facts of the case were not sufficient to grant premium to the plaintiff

Trial Court should have closed evidence under O. XVII, R.1(3) instead of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.

Impugned judgment and decree did not call for any interference

Appeal was dismissed while rectifying the provisions under which evidence was closed.

Chief Ministerial Officer of the court was bound to receive the appeal and examine the same to see whether all the requirements of law had been complied with or not

Act of the court or of the public functionary should not be allowed to prejudice any one

Purpose for the enactment of Court Fees Act, 1870 was to recover the revenue and not to penalize the litigant public for non-compliance of any provision of the same

Provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 and other fiscal statute were to be construed strictly in favour of subjects

Appellate Court did not go through the provision of S. 149, C.P.C. and dismissed the appeal for non-payment of court-fee

Court might in its discretion at any stage allow the person where whole or any part of court-fee had not been paid to pay the same and upon such payment the document should have the same force and effect as such fee had been paid in the first instance

Appellate Court was bound to direct the plaintiff to make up deficiency of court-fee upon the memo of appeal but no such direction was passed

Appeal should be deemed to have been filed on the date of its presentation if court-fee was affixed later on and same would not render it time barred

Appellate Court had acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and case was remanded for decision in accordance with law

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Partial statement of one of the defendants was recorded and next date of hearing was fixed for statement of remaining defendants

Trial Court started recording of statement of one of the defendants as witness but did not complete his statement on the said date and passed the impugned order for closing the remaining evidence of the defendants

Closing of remaining evidence by the Trial Court on the same day was not just and proper

Counter suit was also pending before the Trial Court and both the suits were to be disposed of through a single judgment

Opportunity for production of evidence should be provided to the defendants

Impugned order was set aside and Trial Court was directed to provide an opportunity for production of remaining evidence to the defendants which should be completed on the date fixed for the same

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Not permissible under the law to proceed straightway to dismiss the suit while closing the evidence of the party without pronouncing judgment and giving issue-wise findings.

Before dismissing the suit forthwith, party should have been asked to come in the witness box for the purpose of recording of statement and provision of O.XVII, R.2, C.P.C. should have been invoked.

Words "proceed to decide the suit forthwith" do not mean "to decide the suit forthwith" or "dismiss the suit forthwith", court may proceed with the suit notwithstanding either party failed to produce evidence, meaning thereby that in case of default to do a specific act by any party to the suit, next step required to be taken in the suit should be taken

Word "forthwith" means without any further adjournment yet it cannot be equated with the word "at once pronounce the judgment".

Appeal was dismissed.