Lakshman Prasad and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - the trial court is advised not to act in a manner like this in its zeal to dispose of matter at an early date because the undue haste sometimes leads to waste.orderu.s. garg, j.1. the applicants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 21-4-2001 passed in civil suit no. 39-a/2000 rejecting the plaintiffs application for adjournment and closing his right to lead further evidence has come to this court.2. though shri ravindra shrivastava, learned advocate general has fairly conceded that the order may be set aside and the case may be remanded back to the trial court for its disposal in accordance with law, but the manner in which learned trial court has acted and rejected the plaintiffs' application persuades me to write few words.3. from the orders passed by the court-below it appears that the plaintiff laxman prasad made an application under order 17 rule 1, cpc seeking adjournment on the ground that in an accident he had suffered fracture.....

Judgment:
ORDER

U.S. Garg, J.

1. The applicants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 21-4-2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 39-A/2000 rejecting the plaintiffs application for adjournment and closing his right to lead further evidence has come to this Court.

2. Though Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Advocate General has fairly conceded that the order may be set aside and the case may be remanded back to the Trial Court for its disposal in accordance with law, but the manner in which learned Trial Court has acted and rejected the plaintiffs' application persuades me to write few words.

3. From the orders passed by the Court-below it appears that the plaintiff Laxman Prasad made an application under Order 17 Rule 1, CPC seeking adjournment on the ground that in an accident he had suffered fracture of his ribs, said plaster was removed on 17-4-2001 and the plaintiff was required to take complete rest as per the advice of the doctor.

4. From the order passed by the Court-below it does not appear that the application was opposed by the counsel for the State. The Court-below rejected the said application observing that on 5-3-2001, on the same foundation the case was adjourned on cost of Rs. 100/- and if the plaintiff continue to be unwell then he should have made an application for issuance of commission for recording his statements. The Court not only rejected the application but even closed the right of the plaintiff.

5. It is most unfortunate that a Judge who dispenses justice in fact dispensed with justice. It is also unfortunate that not only a cruel and hyper technical but unhuman approach has been adopted by the Court-below. One should not forget that he may also fall sick or may not be able to work on some day for reasons personal to him. It is not expected of an ailing or sick man that he would appear in the Court and give his statements. Assuming that the plaintiff could make an application for issuance of commission for recording his statements then too should the Court exercising its authority compel an ailing party/witness to give his statements before commissioner when such party is taking complete bed rest in accordance with the advice of the doctor.

6. Nobody stated before the Trial Court that the application of the plaintiff was mala fide or the cause projected for seeking adjournment was false or manufactured one. The approach of the Court-below cannot be approved. The order passed by the Court-below is set-aside.

7. It is hereby directed that the Trial Court shall give proper opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. The Trial Court is advised not to act in a manner like this in its zeal to dispose of matter at an early date because the undue haste sometimes leads to waste.