RAJ RANI Vs. VIJAY RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India against the order dated 12. 8. 2005 as well as against the order dated 7. 3. 2008 whereby the review application made by the petitioner against the order dated 12. 8. 2005 was dismissed. It will be fruitful to read the orders.

(2.) ON 12. 8. 2005 the suit was fixed before the learned Civil Judge and learned Civil Judge passed following order: suit No. 516/03 12. 08. 05 present: Counsel for the parties along with plaintiff in person today matter is fixed for RPE and it is last opportunity for defendant to cross examine the PW, since even on last date defendant failed to appear till 12. 30 p. m. but still last opportunity was granted for today. This is an older matter pending since 1997. In this case PE was filed on 28. 04. 2005 and counsel for defendant is requested to commence his cross examination of the pw on the affidavit and the objections, if any, can be recorded and it will also be subject to outcome of application since though, the Court is ready to hear arguments even on the application now also but defendant seeks time. However, counsel for defendant refuses to cross examine the PW present and submits that the matter be adjourned today and he be given time to file a formal reply to application of plaintiff u/s 151 CPC. On the other hand, it is submitted by plaintiff that this is only a delay tactics on behalf of defendant and the matter is an old matter and defendant be not granted a date on this pretext. It is clear that though none appeared on last date of hearing for defendant when application was filed but still defendant in interest of justice is granted an opportunity to file the formal reply. However, it is mandate of amended CPC that after trial has commenced the evidence must be completed expeditiously and the procedural delays must not be allowed to stop the evidence in between. In fact with a view to expedite completion of evidence, the Division Bench of Hon"ble High Court in ilr (2003) I Delhi 23 has held that defendant can be asked to file his affidavit in evidence even before he has cross examined the plaintiff witnesses. It was observed that method of evidence by affidavit has been devised for convenience of the parties to save their time and that of court. In present case, today was last opportunity for cross examination of PW and in view of the fact that this is an old matter right of defendant to cross examine the PW is closed. It is submitted that no more PE is to be lead. Hence, PE is also closed. Counsel for defendant submits time and again that the court must be sure before passing the order since he intends to move to Hon"ble superior courts, he further submits that his each and every submission must be recorded. Now at this stage counsel for defendant seeks time to file application about issues having been framed on 03. 03. 05 also, after induction of a new defendant no. 3. However, it is clear that no such application was moved or objection made on previous dates though nearly six months have passed. But counsel for defendant submits that he will move formal application in this regard. Let it be moved with advance copy to OP. Now to come up for DE and FP, advance copy of the affidavit of DW be supplied at least one week before NDOH, reply to applications be also filed with copy to OP. Though it is an old case but a lightly longer date is granted in interest of justice, as requested so that defendant can avail of legal remedies before Hon"ble Superior Courts. Now to come up on 30. 09. 2005. (Jitender Mishra)Civil Judge, Delhi 12. 08. 2005

(3.) AFTER the above order was dictated by the Court to the steno and while the Civil Court was busy in dealing with other cases fixed on that day, the Counsel for the petitioner and his associates gheoroed the Court and wanted that the file should be given to the Counsel for inspection, knowing fully well that the Court of Civil Judge was working only with one steno and it was not possible to type every order simultaneously. However, the Counsel insisted that inspection should be allowed on the same day immediately and what was the conduct of the Counsel was noted down by the Civil Judge and the order reads as under: 12. 08. 2005 3. 30 p. m. At this stage, an inspection application is moved through counsel on behalf of defendant no. 2. The case was listed today only and orders are not typed since there is only one steno and besides regular work of daily orders, evidence, he has to take dictation in final order and miscellaneous order, there is also extra work due to day being an execution day. The order in case was also pronounced in the presence of counsel, hence, it was submitted that orders may be inspected at later time, however, counsel who has also brought a few other gentlemen is adamant and hampers judicial work and interfere in work of steno and Reader. He forces the Court to retire to chamber for judicial work but even there he and his colleagues are harassing the Court and staff, now he submits that court must scribble in writing the reasons for the refusal. Since he will go to learned DJ in between dictation and the scene and harassment, the court scribbles down the reason but the counsel and his group lay siege to court room and are threatening the Reader and forcing him to shuttle very frequently to chamber, demanding that court must stop other work and their work must be allowed. All the requests have no effect on them. Judicial work has come to a standstill. Sd/-C. J.