Case Note & Summary
This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the Union of India through the Central Public Works Department against an order of the Ad-hoc District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, closing the petitioner's evidence in Civil Suit No.42/2006, a suit for recovery of money. The suit was posted for evidence. The petitioner had sought five adjournments for examining PW1. On the scheduled date of 15 January 2013, PW1 did not appear, and the trial court closed the petitioner's evidence. The petitioner contended that PW1 had to urgently travel to Delhi due to his mother's illness and could not attend the court; an air ticket showing the return journey on 16 January 2013 was produced to support this claim. The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had been delaying the proceedings with frivolous adjournment applications and that the reasons given on the date of adjournment were vague. The High Court noted that it is settled law that courts should not normally grant adjournments after three opportunities, but subsequent adjournments may be granted in very exceptional circumstances. The court found that the petitioner had a reasonable ground for non-attendance on the relevant date, as the illness of the mother and the subsequent travel could not be disbelieved. However, given the past conduct of seeking five adjournments and lack of diligence, the court deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned order subject to imposition of costs. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, which emphasized that heavy costs can curb unnecessary adjournments, the High Court quantified costs at Rs.10,000 as a condition precedent for allowing the party to lead evidence. Accordingly, the rule was made absolute, the closure order was quashed, and the trial court was directed to provide an opportunity to lead evidence, subject to payment of costs. This decision balanced the plaintiff's genuine difficulty with the imperative to prevent abuse of process and ensure diligence in civil proceedings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Adjournments - Restrictions on Adjournments - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XVII - A Court should not normally grant adjournments after three opportunities; further adjournments are to be granted only in very exceptional circumstances. (Para 8) B) Civil Procedure - Costs - Imposition of Costs to Check Delay - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 35B - To control unnecessary adjournments and delay, courts can impose heavy costs; here, costs of Rs.10,000 imposed as condition for setting aside closure order. (Para 8) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Setting Aside Closure of Evidence - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Where the trial court closed evidence due to non-appearance of witness, but the witness had a genuine reason (mother's illness), the High Court can quash the order and direct opportunity to lead evidence, subject to costs. Held that impugned order set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000 to respondent. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order closing the plaintiff's evidence was justified in light of the genuine reason for non-appearance of the witness, and whether the High Court should interfere under writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15/01/2013 closing the evidence of the plaintiff is quashed and set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000 as condition precedent. The trial court is directed to give opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence.
Law Points
- Courts should not grant adjournments after three opportunities except in exceptional circumstances
- imposition of costs controls unnecessary adjournments
- closure of evidence can be set aside if genuine reason for absence shown
- writ of certiorari available to correct jurisdictional errors
