Bharti Rajak & Ors. v. Meena Devi & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the above discussions, this petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Petitioners :- P..S.A.S. Pathi For the Respondents :- Mr. Shamim Akhtar .2/5.2.2013. The present petitioners by way of filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.6.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division) I, Jamshedpur in Title suit No. 67 of 2000 whereby the petition filed for recalling the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs as well as defendants prior to 10.12.2010 in order to cross examine them has been rejected by the court below. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents. Perused the impugned order as well as other material placed on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioners-defendants have been impleaded as party in the suit vide order dated 10.12.2010 and therefore witnesses examined prior to impleadment are required to be cross-examined by the petitioners.
However, single opportunity of cross examination has not been given to the present petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the court below has not assigned any reason while passing the impugned order on the contention raised in the application for the purpose of cross-examination of the witnesses. It is also submitted that the court below has rejected the application due to latches and delay on the part of the petitioners as this application was submitted at the stage of the arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon decisions in the cases of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011)11 SCC 275, Alauddin Ansari and Ors. Vs. Abdul Sattar Ansari reported in 2010(4) JLJR 125 and also the order passed in W.P. (C) no. 6543 of 2011. As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs while justifying the order passed by the court below submitted that the court below has assigned eight reasons for rejection of the application preferred by the present petitioners.
It is also submitted that though there was ample opportunity to the present petitioners but the present petitioners have not availed their opportunity after impleadment as party defendant in the suit and therefore, the court below has rightly and properly rejected the application. It is submitted that the present petitioners have made the application at the fag end of trial with a view to delay the proceeding and that is why the court below has taken note of the said conduct and rejected the application of the present petitioners. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the court below has passed a reasoned order assigning about eight reasons for rejection of the application. On perusal of the materials placed on record it appears that the present petitioners have been impleaded on 10.12.2010 meaning thereby more than two years were available to the present petitioners for submission of such application but the present petitioners have not submitted such application within time.
Operative part
Therefore, the court below has rightly and properly rejected the application. I have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as stated above. The facts, as have been discussed herein above, clearly suggests that there were latches on the part of the defendants-petitioners and therefore, the court below has rightly and properly rejected the application by assigning eight reasons and therefore, in view of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners are not entitled to get benefits of above referred two judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. ` In view of the above discussions, this petition is dismissed. (P.P.Bhatt,J) SD
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above discussions, this petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.