My Quora Answer to :
If only absolutely necessary, and is inevitable.
An Interim Application can be filed, when the case is reserved for passing Judgement, provided it is not amounting to abuse of process of the Court, and it is in the interest of justice.
Supreme Court J. P. Sathasivam, Jagdish Singh Khehar, have opined in their judgment in “M/S Bagai Construction Tr.Prop vs M/S Gupta Building Material Store on 22 February, 2013”:
“19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs.12) After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the CPC, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered. We are satisfied that the plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed show that the plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case, the plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 CPC.[1]
Also, Karnataka HC - J. N Jain, V Sabhahit in “Rabiya Bi Kassim M. vs The Country Wide Consumer ... on 5 April, 2004” reported at ILR 2004 KAR 2215, and 2004 (4) KarLJ 189:
Even if we assume it for the sake of argument without accepting, in view of the amendment in CPC, as we find, the law relating to procedure in suits and civil proceedings are governed by CPC, The CPC has been amended from time to time.Recently also, in order to cut short the delays at various levels in disposal of civil cases, CPC was amended by the Amendment Act of 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002.In the facts of the given case, sufficient opportunity was given to the plaintiff to complete his evidence, but he has not availed the opportunity at appropriate time and thereafter his evidence was closed. The case was fixed for defendant's evidence and ultimately the case was heard and reserved for judgment on 20.6.2001.In our view, if the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment, such an application is not maintainable as otherwise it will defeat the very object of amendment in speedy disposal of the cases.[2]
It is seen by all, and also observed by the Courts that one of the major causes of delay in decision of suit, is the practice of seeking and granting time, delaying in filing of written statements and objections, filing excessive number of Interim Applications, delaying leading of evidence, and seeking adjournments for frivolous reasons.
The Supreme Court in ARJUN SINGH v. MOHINDRA KUMAR, has held that once the matter has been finally heard and posted for judgment, the Court has only to pronouncement the judgment.
After the deletion of the Clause (4) of Order 18 Rule 2
it clearly shows that it is not the intention of the Legislature to permit filing of the interlocutory application, even after the arguments are heard and the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment, and therefore, such interlocutory applications cannot be entertained..[3]
Footnotes
No comments:
Post a Comment