BASANT NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a batch of ten Miscellaneous Appeals arising out of nine title suits. A batch of 246 suits had been instituted by different plaintiffs against the State of Bihar and others in the year 1948. After a protracted litigation for about ten years, the cases were ultimately fixed for hearing on 22-7-1957. Two days before that date, i.e., on 20-7-1957, an application for extension of time was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground of illness of the witnesses, but the petition for extension of time was rejected. On 22-7-1957, an application was made on behalf of the plaintiffs stating that Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh of Ramgarh and his representatives negotiated for a compromise in all the suits as between the State of Bihar and the Raja Bahadur and his transferees and that the compromise had been arrived at covering most of the suits and a copy of the terms of the agreement was attached with the application. It was also stated that the terms and conditions were finally confirmed by the Raja Bahadur and that it was expected that the formal order with regard to the filing of a joint petition of compromise will be issued by the Government of Bihar within a reasonable period. It was, therefore, prayed that the suits be adjourned for two months for the completion of the formalities of the compromise. The lawyer appearing for the State of Bihar, however, submitted that he did not receive any instruction from the Government in this regard and the cases were adjourned to 29-7-1857. On that date, on behalf of the defendant, the State of Bihar, a petition was filed stating that no terms and conditions of compromise had been settled between the parties. On the same Sate an application under Order 23, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for recording the compromise and passing a decree in accordance with it. On 9-8-1957, several documents were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs which were treated as part of the application filed on 29-7-1957, for recording the compromise. 26-8-1957 was fixed for the hearing of the above application with a direction to the defendants to file rejoinder, if any, by 17-8-1957. Parties were directed to take note that the compromise matter will be definitely heard on 26-8-1957, and they were directed to take all steps within proper time. They were also directed to take steps at once if they wanted to examine any witness on commission or to call for any document or to summon any witness. On 17-8-1957, a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the defendant, the State of Bihar, challenging the settlement of the dispute by compromise between the parties. On that date a list of witnesses to be summoned by the court and a petition with a prayer for issue of summonses to the witnesses were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and a sum of Rs. 1000 as expenses for witnesses was deposited in court and process fee of Rs. 36/- for summoning the witnesses was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. The list of witnesses contained the names of 48 witnesses including some Ministers, Secretariat Officers, Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Members of the Parliament who were either in Calcutta or at Patna or at New Delhi. As a sum of Rs. 1,000 only had been deposited towards the cost of witnesses, the plaintiffs were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,000/-more towards the same by 22-8-1957, and they were further required to give an undertaking to the court that they will deposit forthwith any extra amount the court will order in future to meet the cost of the witnesses. It was also ordered that after compliance of this order necessary orders will be passed for summoning the witnesses. The plaintiffs were also directed to file necessary processes with correct addresses of the witnesses by 22-8-1957. It appears that there was a different batch of 33 title suits which were also alleged to have been settled under the compromise along with these 246 suits but the plaintiffs of most of those 33 suits did not file any application for recording the compromise-On 20-8-1957, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs of these suits for issuing notices to the plaintiffs of most of the other batch of the 33 suits and a prayer was made for adjourning the hearing of the compromise matter for a month. On 22-8-1957, the suits were adjourned to 24-8-1957, as the plaintiffs wanted to obtain the photographs of the copies of the documents filed by the defendants. In the meantime, on 23-8-1957, the plaintiffs got the hearing of the suits stayed by an order of the District Judge passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 23 of 1957. The cases were directed to be put up on 15-11-1957, awaiting further information from the District Judge. On 31-10-1957, however, the court received information from the District Judge vacating the stay order and the parties were directed to come ready for the hearing of the compromise matter on the date fixed, that is, on 15-11-1957, and all concerned were informed of this order. Four days before the date fixed for the hearing, i.e., on 11-11-1957, the plaintiffs filed a petition praying that their prayer made on 20-8-1957, for issuing notices to the plaintiffs of the other suits must be disposed of before the hearing of the compromise matter. This application was directed to be put up on the date fixed, i.e., on 15-11-1957. On that date the plaintiffs did not take any step and the cases were directed to be put up on the next date for orders on the petition filed on behalf of the plaintiffs on 20-8-1957, for issuing notices to the plaintiffs of the other 33 suits. On that date the court, for reasons given in its order, rejected the prayer for issuing notices to the plaintiffs of the suits referred to above and fixed 2-12-1957, for hearing of the compromise matter. As the plaintiffs had not deposited the sum of Rs. 6,000 towards the cost of witnesses, as directed by order dated 17-8-1957, the court gave them three days' more time to deposit the same and to get the summonses to the witnesses served through special peons as the time was short. It was also made clear in the order that failing compliance of the same, the petition for summoning the witnesses through court shall stand rejected. On 18-11-1-957, the plaintiffs prayed for 10 days' more time to deposit the amount of cost and they were given time till 21-11-1957, for depositing the amount. On that date the plaintiffs deposited only a sum of Rs. 5,000 but they did not file the forms of summonses to the witnesses duly filled up and as such the summonses to the witnesses could not be issued. On 25-11-1957, the plaintiffs deposited the balance of Rs. 1,000 towards the cost of witnesses and filed processes to be issued to these witnesses. It also appears that the plaintiffs made a prayer for Issue of dasti summons to the witnesses and the court allowed the prayer at their entire risk for the date fixed. On 29-11-1957, a revision application was filed in this Court on behalf of the plaintiffs being Civil Revision No. 971 of 1957 which came up for admission on 2-12-1957, and the following order was passed by this Court:

(2.) Mr. P. R. Das, appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants in all these appeals, has contended that the court on its own motion adjourned the hearing of the compromise matter from 11-1-1958 to 20-1-1958, and the plaintiffs were as a matter of right entitled to have their witnesses summoned through court for attending the court on 20-1-1958. He has conceded that on the previous occasions orders for issue of dasti summonses were passed at the risk of the plaintiffs and if the matter under consideration would have been heard on 11-1-1958, they could not have any say in the matter. But, his argument is that since the cases were adjourned from that date to 20-1-1958, for which date the witnesses of the plaintiffs were never summoned to appear, they have a right under the law to have their witnesses summoned through court. Reliance has been placed in support of this contention on Order 16, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is in these terms :

(3.) From the facts of the present case, as stated above, it is manifest that the application of the plaintiffs was not bona fide and that they were guilty of wilful laches and negligence. Whatever may have been the cause in prolonging the litigation for such a long period may not be relevant for the purpose of the present enquiry, but it is clear that though opportunities were given to the plaintiffs to have their witnesses summoned, they failed to avail of them. On 9-8-1957, the court definitely fixed 26-8-1957, as the date for the hearing of the compromise matter and the parties were directed to take steps for summoning the witnesses, if they so liked, at once. The plaintiffs, however, for the first time made an application for summoning the witnesses-on 17-8-1957, but did not deposit sufficient amount of money as expenses for the witnesses. Even the processes were filed with incorrect addresses. The court, therefore, gave them time till 22-8-1957, to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,000 and to file necessary processes with correct addresses of the witnesses. Instead of complying with the above order, the plaintiffs, on 20-8-1957, made an application for issue of notices to the plaintiffs of the other 33 suits, referred to above. Thereafter, the hearing of the suits was stayed by the order of the District Judge but the stay order was vacated subsequently and the intimation of vacating the stay order was received by the court on 31-10-1957. 15-11-1957 was the date fixed for the hearing of the compromise matter but on that date the plaintiffs did not take any step. Later on 2-12-1957, was the date fixed for the hearing of the compromise matter and the plaintiffs were directed to comply with the previous order of the court requiring them to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,000 and to file processes with correct addresses. The hearing of the compromise matter was fixed with the consent of the parties in the High Court to be on 11-11-1957, but notwithstanding that the plaintiffs did not take any step for getting their witnesses summoned for about a month and for the first time, on 2-1-1958, they applied for issue of dasti summonses and the court passed an order for issue of dasti summonses at their risk. On 11-1-1958, they filed process fees along with processes and the Presiding Officer being on leave the Subordinate Judge in charge directed the plaintiffs to take dasti summonses to their witnesses. No objection was raised to this order by the plaintiffs on that date. But, on 16-1-1958, they made an application for extension of the date for hearing the compromise matter on the ground that they had to summon their witnesses through court. That application having been rejected, the matter was put up for consideration on the date fixed, viz., 20-1-1958, but the plaintiffs failed to appear and press their application. The court, therefore, rejected their application for recording the compromise. It is manifest, therefore, that the plaintiffs always failed to take proper steps in time and purposely managed to take steps for having their witnesses summoned at the last moment for which there could be no excuse.