M/s Sant Ram Rice Mills, Gidderbaha v. The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 s. 34
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 17 r. 1
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Smriti Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 21.11.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, thereby closing evidence of the petitioner by court order. Petitioner has filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside Arbitral Award dated 27.02.2006. Petitioner's evidence has been closed by court order after granting about nine effective opportunities. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the C. R. No. 98 of 2012 2 case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for leading its remaining evidence, on payment of cost. The contention cannot be accepted. The trial court has shown over-indulgence to the petitioner by granting nine opportunities for its evidence.
According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three effective opportunities are required to be given to a party for its evidence. Of course, this provision has to be interpreted with some flexibility and not very strictly. However, the said provision, which has been introduced by amendment, so as to curtail delay in decision of the cases, cannot be give a complete go-by. In the instant case, already more than sufficient effective opportunities have been granted to the petitioner for its evidence, but the petitioner failed to close its evidence. Reason for the same is not far to seek. There is Arbitral Award dated 27.02.2006 against the petitioner for amount of over Rs.1 Crore. The petitioner is obviously delaying the execution of the said Award by prolonging the objections preferred by the petitioner. The Award is already almost six years old. Counsel for the petitioner contended that nephews of petitioner's partner were admitted to hospital, and therefore, he could not appear on the last two dates of hearing.
However, no such request was made to the trial court. Consequently, this contention cannot be accepted. There is no infirmity, perversity, illegality or jurisdictional C. R. No. 98 of 2012 3 error in the impugned order of the trial court. Sufficient number of effective opportunities have already been granted to the petitioner for its evidence. The petitioner is to blame itself for the situation, in which it finds itself because the petitioner failed to lead its evidence in spite of more than sufficient opportunities granted to lead its evidence. In view of the aforesaid, no further indulgence is required to be shown to the petitioner by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order does not warrant any interference. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. January 06, 2012 monika ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 17 r. 1.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 06 Jan 2012. The bench was L N MITTAL.
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.