T.G. CHANDRU Vs. B. VIJAYKUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in O.S. No. 117/2006 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM at Hassan. Suit has been instituted to pass a judgment and decree for specific performance in pursuance of an agreement of sale dated 13.08.2005 in respect of the properties shown in the schedule of the plaint. The 2nd defendant is a purchaser of the suit properties from the 1st defendant. Both the defendants have filed the written statement and have contested the suit. Issues having been raised based on the pleadings of the parties, plaintiff deposed as PW.1 on 02.08.2011, Ex.P1 to P13 were marked and case was adjourned for cross -examination of PW.1. On 06.09.2011 the defendant No. 1 and his learned advocate were absent and hence, the cross -examination of PW.1 was taken as nil and the case was adjourned to 20.9.2011 for cross -examination of PW.1 subject to payment of cost by defendant No. 2. Since PW.1 was present, prayer for an adjournment was rejected on 20.09.2011 and cross -examination of PW.1 was taken as nil and the suit was adjourned. Plaintiff filed I.A.7, under Order 16, Rule 1 of CPC. On 03.11.2011 I.A.8 was filed under Order 18, Rule 17 of CPC and I.A.9 was filed under S.151 of CPC and the same were allowed. Further evidence of PW.1 was recorded and Ex.P14 to P17 were marked. PWs.2 and 3 were also examined and the case was adjourned for cross -examination of PWs.1, 2 and 3. On 12.12.2011 the defendants and their learned advocates remained absent. PWs.1 to 3 were present. Since the witnesses were not cross -examined, the cross -examination was taken as nil and the plaintiff closed his case. Case was adjourned to 03.01.2012 for defendants' evidence and the defendants and their advocate remained absent and for defendant No. 2 an adjournment was prayed, the matter was adjourned finally. Again an adjournment having been prayed, finding no justification, evidence of defendant No. 2 was taken as nil and defendants' case was closed and the suit was adjourned to 20.01.2012 for hearing of arguments. On 13.03.2012 plaintiff filed I.A.10 under S.151 of CPC, I.A.11 under Order 18, Rule 17 of CPC and there was no representation for the defendants and I.As.10 and 11 were allowed and Ex.P.19 was marked through PW.1 and PW.4 was examined. There being no representation by the defendants, cross -examination of PWs.1 and 4 was taken as nil. Arguments of the advocate for plaintiff was heard on 17.03.2012 and the case was adjourned to 21.03.2012 for hearing arguments of advocates for the defendants. There was no representation for the defendants and their arguments was taken as nil and the suit was posted for judgment by 27.03.2012. On 26.03.2012 the defendant No. 2 filed an application for advancement and filed I.A.13 under Order 18, Rule 17 read with 151 of CPC and I.A.14 under S.151 of CPC. Plaintiff filed objections to IAs.13 and 14 on 27.03.2012. The said applications were allowed on the ground that, if defendants are not permitted to cross -examine the PWs and lead evidence, there is scope for multiplicity of proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed these writ petitions.

(2.) SRI G.A. Srikante Gowda, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that there is material irregularity and an irrational act on the part of the learned Trial Judge in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that there was no bona fides of whatsoever nature on the part of the defendants, who alongwith their advocates remained absent all along and hence I.As.13 and 14 ought to have not been allowed.

(3.) PERUSED the records. The point for consideration is "whether the impugned order is irrational and warrant any interference -