This Court by an order dated 30.3.2012 called for the report from the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad as to what steps could be taken for early decision of Civil Suit No. 2084 of 1997. Since no report was received, further order dated 13.4.2012 was passed directing the RegistrY TO CALL FOR EXPLANATION OF THE LEARNED Judge. It appears that the learned Judge had sent explanation dated 18.4.2012 but since it was sent in Special Civil Application No. 1446 of 2012, office could not place such explanation before this Court. Subsequently, office has placed said explanation wherein the learned Judge has stated that the applicant has misled this Court by stating incorrect facts. It is stated in the said explanation that in the suit, only evidence of the plaintiff was taken and it was at the stage of evidence of the defendant and the suit had never attained the stage of judgment. It is stated in the report that the suit is still pending and the evidence or arguments of the defendant has never commenced. Along with this explanation, copy of rojnama is sent to point out that there is no mention of the fact of keeping the civil suit for judgment. It is further stated that no steps could be suggested for expeditious disposal of the suit.
Having read the contents of the explanation of the learned Judge, this Court has called upon the learned Advocate Mr. MB Gandhi appearing for the applicant to know as to why and under what circumstances, the applicant has made false statements in the special civil application as also in the subsequent application. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has stated at the Bar that the applicant has not made any false statements and what was being represented before this court was on the basis of what had actually happened before the concerned court in which the suit was pending. He drew attention of this court to the rojkam and pointed out that after the applicant plaintiff submitted purshis closing their oral evidence, on two subsequent stages, some documents which were required to be placed on record were produced and, thereafter, the plaintiff's advocate had submitted written arguments which were accepted by the learned Judge and since the advocate for the defendant had not submitted any documents or any written arguments, the applicant bona fide believed that the hearing was over and the suit was kept for judgment. Learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that since the advocate for the defendant had stopped appearing and he in fact stated that he had not received any instructions to appear, learned advocate for the plaintiff had to send the copy of written arguments directly to the defendant. Thereafter, the suit remained pending and since no further step was taken to deliver the judgment, applicant bona fide believed that though the written arguments were submitted long before, the suit was not being disposed of and therefore, the applicant had moved this court to get the suit disposed of at the earliest. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi stated that though according to the procedure or law, it can be said that since there was no closure purshis from the defendant or since there was no written arguments submitted by the defendant, the suit was pending but since the advocate for the defendant had stopped appearing and since the learned advocate for the plaintiff was permitted to file the written arguments, for all purpose, stage of the suit for completion of the arguments was over and, therefore, since there was no response from the side of the defendant, the plaintiff bona fide proceeded as if the suit was kept for judgment. He, however, expressed regrets on behalf of the applicant for the way in which the things have happened and the learned Principal Judge was put to some difficulty in sending his report. He has expressed apology on behalf of the applicant for making this Court to pass the order in Special Civil Application and subsequently in Miscellaneous Civil Application but he stated that the applicant had no other intention except to see that his suit was taken up for disposal at the earliest.
Considering the oral explanation given by the learned advocate Mr. Gandhi on behalf of the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that no harsh action is required to be taken against the applicant though learned Principal Judge has in his explanation and report expressed that the suit had never reached the stage of judgment and the plaintiff had misled this Court. However, as stated above, considering the rojkam as also the fact that the written arguments from the plaintiff were accepted, taking liberal view of the matter, this court does not propose to take any other action. This Court is of the view that no further order for final disposal of the suit within particular time limit is required to be passed. Accordingly this application is disposed of.
(C.L.
Soni,J.) an vyas Top