This story is from August 28, 2014

Man fined Rs one lakh for delaying case due to eye problem

There will be no more ‘tareek pe tareek’ for one litigant. Irked at a Thane resident for trying to repeatedly seek adjournment in an 18-year-old case, giving reasons like he had an eye problem, the Bombay high court imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh while dismissing his matter.
Man fined Rs one lakh for delaying case due to eye problem
MUMBAI: There will be no more ‘tareek pe tareek’ for one litigant. Irked at a Thane resident for trying to repeatedly seek adjournment in an 18-year-old case, giving reasons like he had an eye problem, the Bombay high court imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh while dismissing his matter. Justice Gautam Patel rapped the petitioner.
“These are sharp practices. It is quite clear what the plaintiff’s intentions are,” the judge said while rapping the petitioner who sought another adjournment on Wednesday as an application to make changes to the petition had been filed.
“No further latitude can be shown to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his advocate are unwilling to proceed with the suit, even as to the limited purpose of framing issues. Even today, all that the plaintiff and his advocate seek is a further adjournment.” The court told the litigant, Devshi Shankhala, to pay the fine in two weeks.
Shankhala had dragged Shruti Builders to court in 1996, seeking to terminate a development agreement for allegedly breaching terms of payment and over the issue of FSI. The building in Panchpakhadi, Thane, had been constructed.
The court said Shankhala had been “persistently delaying” progress in the trial for at least five months since February 2014. On February 26, the petitioner claimed that he had an eye problem, after which the judge adjourned the matter. When it came up again on April 7, the same excuse was given for an adjournment. The court then said the petitioner’s presence was not needed as the issue had to be framed in the trial, which could be done when his advocate was present. The matter was adjourned at following hearings too. When it came up on Wednesday, Harshal Mirashi, counsel for Shankhala, said a plea for changes had been filed. The suit was dismissed.
author
About the Author
Shibu Thomas

Shibu Thomas is a special correspondent at The Times of India in Mumbai. He writes on legal issues in the Bombay high Court and other courts in the city. He has written on PILs filed by citizens, human rights violations and prisoners caught in the legal system. He has travelled across two continents and plans to cover the remaining five.

End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA