IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1187 of 2006 HEERA CHANDRA SWARNKAR @ HEERA CHAND SWARNKAR Versus RADHEY SHYAMJEE MAHRAJ VIRAJMAN @ ORS. ----------- 4 08.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite parties. This Court would find no error in the impugned order rejecting prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for leading and completing evidence, in as much as, repeated indulgence given to the petitioner by the court below and this Court has proved to be of no avail. The petitioner, in fact, has suppressed the vital information even in this Civil Revision Application which have now been revealed by the opposite parties when they have appeared on notice issued by this court. It appears that initially the mother of the petitioner had brought a suit in the year, 1997 basically for avoiding a decree of eviction passed against her in the year, 1987. The plaintiffs- opposite parties of that eviction suit who have been made defendants in the subsequent suit filed by the mother of the petitioner, are the lone victim of delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner, who after death of his mother is pursuing the suit in the capacity of plaintiff. In such suit when evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner was closed by the court below on account of delaying tactics the petitioner had moved this Court in C.R. No. 439 of 2004, and this Court even after noticing the deliberate delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner had, in the interest of justice, allowed prayer of the petitioner for leading and completing - 2 - his evidence by recording the following findings:- “ Having heard counsel for the parties and after going through the order impugned it is evident that there is serious laches on the part of the petitioner. Several times the case was adjourned on payment of cost but he did not pay the cost. However, to meet the ends of justice I am inclined to grant opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. He must pay the cost awarded by the Court below by 29th of November 2004. If the petitioner deposits the cost, as indicated above by 29th of November 2004, he shall be allowed to lead evidence and conclude his evidence by 15th of January 2005. If the petitioner fails to discharge his obligation, his evidence shall be closed. After deposit of the cost, the Court shall fix a date and proceed with the hearing of the case on day to day basis”. Thus, even as per direction of this Court the suit could have been brought to an end in the year 2005, but that was not allowed to happen by the petitioner, who instead of leading and completing his evidence has filed a petition for transfer of the suit from the court where it was pending. Such transfer application filed before the District Judge was also rejected and the petitioner again moved this Court by filing another Civil Revision Application, which too was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner, however, did not mind all these because he was able to delay disposal of the suit which appears to be his main game plan. As a matter of fact after second round of Civil Revision was also rejected by the court the petitioner appeared before the court below and insisted for leading evidence without payment of cost as directed in the order of this Court in C.R. No. 439 of 2004. The court below obviously rejected such prayer, whereupon, this Civil Revision - 3 - Application was filed curiously enough all these facts were suppressed and rule was obtained from this Court by getting the notice issued with stay of the further proceeding of the suit in this Civil Revision Application and that is how the petitioner very happily got the time for another two and half years. Counsel for the petitioner, however, now submits that it was on account of some misunderstanding and misconceived advice that he had sought transfer of the suit and that the petitioner really intends to contest the suit, but if his evidence is not allowed to be completed, the same would amount to dismissing the suit here itself and in fact making the earlier decree of 1987, in the suit filed by the opposite party, operative. This Court, in fact, is not satisfied with such plea of the petitioner, but then it would find that if second suit of the petitioner is also dismissed on some technical ground, he may still resort to filing of third suit which will in fact further complicate the matter for the opposite party. This Court also cannot ignore the earlier order passed by this Court in C.R. No. 439 of 2004 giving indulgence to the petitioner for leading and completing his evidence. Thus, even if this Court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has consistently adopted filibusterous attitude with one point programme to delay disposal of the suit, this Court would allow prayer of the petitioner to complete his evidence subject to the condition that he must do so in a fixed time limit and also by compensating the opposite parties for the repeated harassment and continued delay - 4 - caused to them. Accordingly, this Court would direct the petitioner to complete his evidence within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order subject to condition that before undertaking the exercise of adducing evidence in terms of this order the petitioner must deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in addition to any other cost that was supposed to be paid by the petitioner in terms of the earlier order of the court below and/or this Court, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner deposits cost of Rs. 10,000/- the same may be paid to the opposite parties, but if the petitioner does not deposit the cost the court below will close the evidence of the petitioner and call upon defendant-opposite party to complete their evidence and as soon as the evidence of defendant-opposite party is completed, the court below must proceed to hear the argument of both sides on day to day basis so that the judgment in this case is delivered within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The court below will also submit a report to this Court about disposal of the suit immediately after expiry of the aforesaid time frame. Subject to aforementioned observation and direction this application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Bibhash/Abhay (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)