Decided on January 30,2018

Habijuddin Fakir Appellant
ABDUL KADIR Respondents


A.K.GOSWAMI - (1.) Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
(2.) On 21.01.2015, a petition being Petition No.427/2014 under Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of the defendants to allow the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and to adduce defendants' evidence. This petition was rejected by the order dated 26.06.2015 holding as follows:- "In the present suit the plaintiff filed evidence-in-affidavit of the PWs on 23.06.2011. However the defendants took several adjournments for cross examination of the PWs, and as such, on 14.03.2012 my learned predecessor rejected petition bearing No.682/12 filed by the defendants seeking further adjournment, and ordered that the cross examination of the PWs stands declined and fixed next date for submission of DW evidence. The defendants again took several adjournments for submission of evidence-in-affidavit of the DWs, and as such, this Court closed the evidence of defendants and fixed 05.11.2014 for arguments. Thus it is seen that in spite of repeated opportunities the defendants neither cross-examined the plaintiff's witnesses nor submitted their evidence due to which this Court was forced to fix the present suit for arguments almost about three years after the PW evidence was submitted. Law helps those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over the matter. In the present suit PW evidence was submitted 23.06.2011. However, the defendants neither cross examined the PWs nor submitted their evidence although several opportunities were provided to them for a period of over 3(three) years. As such, the contention of the defendants that they hail from village, and as such, are not aware of the technicalities and procedure of the Court of law or that the defendants were completely dependent on their engaged counsel for pursuing the matter and that the adverse orders passed against the defendants were passed without any fault on his part and due to the negligence of their previous advocate is according to my considered view does not hold ground so as to allow the defendants to cross examine the PWs or to allow them to adduce their evidence particularly when the present suit is an old pending one. The petition is, therefore, rejected."
(3.) This application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid order dated 26.06.2015.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.