CW-7125/2008 -Birbal Ram Vs. Rajdeep Singh Judgment dt.22.9.08 1/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7125/2008 Birbal Ram Vs. Rajdeep Singh Date of judgment : 22.9.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. G.R. Goyal for the petitioner. Mr. H.K. Jain for the respondent. ------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.9.2008 whereby the learned trial court closed the defendant's evidence. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court while deciding writ petition of petitioner i.e. SBCW No.7399/2007 – Birbal Ram Vs. Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate & Anr. on 13th May, 2008 had directed to pay the cost of Rs.2200/- on or before the next date of hearing before the learned trial court and also to adduce the entire evidence on the next date, failing which the trial court may pass appropriate orders including for closing down the evidence and setting the matter for final hearing. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- “Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2,200/- and it is enjoined upon the defendant-petitioner to make payment of such costs to the plaintiff-respondent on or before the next date of hearing before the Trial Court and CW-7125/2008 -Birbal Ram Vs. Rajdeep Singh Judgment dt.22.9.08 2/3 also to adduce his entire evidence on the next date in the Trial Court failing which, it shall be permissible for the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders including those for closing down the evidence and setting the matter for final hearing.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. G.R. Goyal submits that the next date fixed after disposal of the writ petition before the learned Trial Court was 7.7.2008. Since the Presiding Officer was on leave, the case was adjourned to 26.8.2008 and again on 26.8.2008 the case was further adjourned to 3.11.2008. However, by a post script the trial Court noted that the counsel for the plaintiff had brought to the notice of the trial the decision of this Court dated 13.5.2008 whereby the cost of Rs.2200/- was required to be paid on or before next date of hearing fixed before the learned trial Court after decision of this Court dated 13.5.2008 still the defendant has sought more time for payment of cost as well as to produce evidence in support of his defence. The matter was thus posted on 2.9.2008 and the learned trial court closed the defendant's evidence and set down the suit for final hearing on 20.10.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that this Court had left free the learned Trial Court to pass appropriate orders including closing down the evidence and setting the matter for final hearing. 5. The arguments of learned Court misses the point in the first part of operative portion of the order which clearly stipulates that cost of Rs.2200/- which was required to be paid by the defendant on CW-7125/2008 -Birbal Ram Vs. Rajdeep Singh Judgment dt.22.9.08 3/3 or before the next date of hearing before the trial court. This did not leave any option either with the defendant or with the learned trial court to extend time for payment of cost in any manner. The said directions of the Court was required to be punctually followed by the defendant. Therefore, the grant of time by the learned trial court for payment of cost and for producing defendant's evidence was contrary to the directions of this Court. The learned trial court on 2.9.2008 was absolutely justified in closing the defendant's evidence since the same was neither produced before the Court on 26.8.2008 nor cost was paid on 7.7.2008 itself. As a matter of fact, the cost was required to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent on or before 7.7.2008 after decision of the writ petition by this Court on 13.5.2008. It is only the meticulous and punctual compliance of the Court's order which can instill confidence in the judicial system and not the bypasses sought to be made by hair splitting as sought to be done by the counsel in the present case. In view of this, no error is found in the impugned order. 6. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.26 babulal