LATE SHRI JEEVAN DASS Vs. RANBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. With the consent of parties the matter has been heard and is being disposed of finally.

(2.) The Trial Court had framed issues on 16.7.91 and the matter was adjourned to 3.2.92 for plaintiffs evidence. Evidence could not be recorded on that date as the plaintiff was not well and medical certificate was produced on that date and the matter was, therefore, adjourned to 15.7.92. On that date also no evidence of the plaintiff was present and the case was adjourned subject to payment of Rs. 300.00 as costs. Thereafter the matter was adjourned till 26.8.97 from time to time for hearing arguments on various applications including the application of defendant/respondent for amendment of the written statement. On 26.8.97, the Court observed that no additional issues were required to be framed and the case was listed for plaintiff's evidence on 13.1.98. The plaintiff filed list of witnesses on 11.12.97 and the same was taken on record. On 13.1.98, the Court did not have time as the Presiding Officer was to go to another Court for giving evidence. The case was, therefore, adjourned to . 8.5.98, on which date evidence of one of the witness of plaintiffs was recorded and the case was adjourned to 21.8.98 for remaining evidence of the plaintiff. On 21.8.98, against only one witness of the plaintiff was exammed and the case was adjourned to 10.9.98 for respondent's evidence. On 10.9.98, the witness summoned from the Rationing Department was present but he did not bring the summoned record and the case was, therefore, adjourned to 16,3.99 for plaintiff's evidence on which date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 16.7.99 for proper order. On 16.7.99 the matter was adjourned to 18.11.99 but again on 18.11.99, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 24.11.99 for proper orders. Though the matter was fixed for proper orders on 24.11.99, the Court, however, observed that nopublic witness was present and the case was adjourned to 9.2.2000. In the meantime, the Counsel who was conducting this case on behalf of the plaintiff was appointed a Counsel on the panel of Delhi Development Authority and since the case was against the DDA, the Counsel wanted to be discharged from the case and a new Counsel was engaged. When the matter came up for hearing on 9.2.99, the new Counsel filed his Vakalatnama and also examined one of the witnesses who was present in Court. An adjournment was thereafter sought by the plaintiff to examine the remaining evidence, however, the Court after observing that issues were framed on 16.7.91 and no list of witness was filed closed the evidence of the plaintiff.

(3.) An application for review of the order dated 9.2.99 was filed which was dismissed by the Court by the impugned order dated 8.5.2000 after holding that filing of the list of witnesses was not relevant since they were required to be filed within 15 days from 16.7.91 when the issues were framed. It was also held by the Court that non-examination of the witnesses and the pendency of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 and under Order 23 Rule 3 was not relevant for decision as to whether or not an adjournment should have been given on 9.2.99 for recording of evidence.