- (1.) THE suit was filed in the year 2008. The petitioner is defendant in the suit (for short 'defendant'). The plaintiff took many years to conclude his evidence, which continued till 11.9.2013 when it was closed by statement of the counsel.
(2.) THE defendant had been given twelve opportunities to produce his evidence, between October, 2013 to February, 2014. His evidence has been closed by impugned order dated 12.2.2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur. Two reasons have been recorded for closing evidence; one, that costs imposed by court on the defendants on a previous date of hearing was not paid, the second reason given is that the case falls in the Action Plan List 2013 -2014 which demands old cases to be decided by 31st December, 2013. I have already commented on the Action Plan Cases and of the judicious application of the directives issued by this Court and its justification carefully used from case to case without trial courts being overawed by it. In CR No.968 of 2014, Rajiv Suri vs. Trust Bagichi Nathan and others decided on 7.2.2014, I observed as follows: - "....Action Plans set by this Court on its administrative side are aimed at dispensing justice tempered with speedy disposal. Such Action Plans are not aimed to be obsessively followed by the trial court to reduce will nilly old cases in a drive of reduction of old pending cases initiated by this Court for good and useful purpose. The only reason assigned by the learned trial court to close evidence is based on administrative directions issued by this Court to the subordinate judiciary. The learned trial court ought to have weighed the interest of both the parties and the cause of justice. The plaintiff took almost six years to conclude its evidence on 12.9.2013. The defendant on his part though took 9 dates within a span of two months and was able to examine two witnesses during the said period, yet the adjournment sought by the defendant cannot be said to be justified, but closing further evidence is quite another matter. If one applies the test of counter balance, then this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside in order to avoid miscarriage of justice. The three official witnesses and one private witness could have been examined by the Court over whom the defendant could have no control to produce. In case, they do not appear on summons issued, then appropriate steps could have been taken by the trial court to secure their presence. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, I do not think that there would be any use in putting the plaintiff to notice since this Court is convinced that for the reason stated in the impugned order, it should not be allowed to stand...."
(3.) AGAIN in CR No.1171 of 2014, Nirmal Singh vs. Inderjit Singh and others decided on 17.2.2014, I spoke: - "....Though the conduct of the petitioner cannot be complimented, nor the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Bathinda can be castigated, yet interest of justice may require interference by this Court against an order which cannot be faulted except that trial court should not be obsessed by Action Plan set by this Court and should always remain alive to exercise its discretion judiciously and to carefully balance the interest of both the sides in order to secure the ends of justice. Action Plans set by this Court on its administrative side are to be followed and respected as an overarching scheme of speedy disposal of cases, but it is not intended that the plan should be used to thwart justice. If the impugned order is set aside to permit the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants -respondents, and therefore, I do not see any reason to issue notice to the opposite party, as they can be compensated by payment of costs." Though the defendant cannot be patted on his back for successfully taking twelve dates, but I feel compelled to relent to interference after considering inter alia the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner hails from Uttar Pradesh and his witnesses have to come from far off places in the State of U.P. It was mostly for this reason that he was unable to lead his evidence effectively within a comparatively short period of time granted by Court as compared to the long drawn out period taken by the plaintiffs to conclude their evidence. I am of the view that interference may be deservedly called for in this case to save it from being sacrificed at the alter of administrative dispensation of the High Court in its justified policy to first deal with old cases burdening the dockets of our courts to scale down pendency, for which purpose the well intended policy has been formulated for the guidance of the subordinate judiciary in their everyday business of the court. The foundation of all jurisprudence is to ensure speedy disposal of cases and interlocutory applications in order to bring litigation to an end in a reasonable and time bound manner. While I interfere in this case I do not see any pressing reason to issue notice to the opposite party in order to perform an empty formality of affording hearing before judgment and delaying the matter further, as they can be adequately compensated by payment of costs and if this course is adopted it would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs by such departure.;