9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rthy to note here that for examination-in-chief, the witness was constrained to come to court on seven occasions. Thereafter, the Defendant filed an interlocutory application under Order XVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking adjournment of the matter for one month on the ground that the mother of the Senior Counsel was unwell. The matter stood adjourned. As the facts would further unfold, the Defendant filed I.A. No. 9 under the very same provision seeking adjournment on the ground that the counsel engaged by him was not keeping well. I.A. No. 10 was filed seeking adjournment for one month on the ground that the Senior Counsel was out of station. I.A. No. 11 was filed on the plea that the Defendant was unable to get certified copies of 'P' series documents. The fifth application, i.e., I.A. No. 12 was filed on the similar ground. The incurable habit continued and I.A. No. 13 was filed seeking adjournment on the ground that the counsel was busy in the marriage ceremony of a relative. And, the matter stood adjourned. The proceedings in the suit got arrested as if "time" had been arrested. Despite filing of so many interlocutory applications, the Defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the said application by narrating in detail the conduct of Petitioner - Defendant. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by the Trial Court." Eventually, the High Court dismissed the writ petition without imposition of any costs. 4. We have heard, Mr. Ashwin K. Kotemath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We have narrated the facts in great detail so that what we have said in the beginning with regard to the abuse of the process of court gets fortified. 5. In K.K. Velusamy (supra), while dealing with the power of the Court under Order XVIII Rule 17, this Court held that: "9. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code enables the court, at any stage of a suit, to recall any witness who has been examined (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) and put such questions to him as it thinks fit. The power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 can be exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting the court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the court to clarify any doubts it may have in regard to the evidence l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which in turn add to the period of pendency." 6. We have referred to the said paragraphs to show the purpose of filing an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code. We may add that though in the said decision this Court allowed the appeals in part, the fact situation, the conduct of the party and the grievance agitated were different. The Court also thought it apposite to add a word of caution and also laid down that if the application is mischievous or frivolous, it is desirable to reject the application with costs. 7. In this context, we may fruitfully refer to Bagai Construction Through its proprietor Lalit Bagai v. Gupta Building Material Store MANU/SC/0195/2013 : (2013) 14 SCC 1. In the said case the Court had expressed its concern about the order passed by the High Court whereby it had allowed the application preferred under Order XVIII Rule 17 that was rejected by the trial court on the ground that there was no acceptable reason to entertain the prayer. Be it stated, this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court. 8. In the said case, it has also been held that it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that too in such a brazen and obtrusive manner. It is wholly reprehensible. The law does not countenance it and, if we permit ourselves to say so, the professional ethics decries such practice. It is because such acts are against the majesty of law. 10. In this context, we may profitable reproduce a passage from Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. (2011) 9 SCC 678, wherein it has been stated that it is sad, but true, that the litigants seek -- and the courts grant -- adjournments at the drop of a hat. In the cases where the Judges are little proactive and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. The court has further laid down that it is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. 11. In Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand (2013) 5 SCC 202 commenting on the delay caused due to dilatory tactics adopted by the parties, the Court was compelled to say: "In a democratic set-up, intrinsic and embedded faith in the adjudicatory system is of seminal and pivotal concern. Delay graduall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
