GHANSHYAM DAS & OTHER Vs. NATHIRAM & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek following relief, among other:

(2.) Plaintiff-Ratni Devi filed a civil suit against Smt. Aruna Modi and petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar for permanent prohibitory injunction. Copy of the ordersheet of the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) 1st, Haridwar has been enclosed by the petitioners as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It starts with the date 15.04.2009, on which the presiding officer was on leave. 08.05.2009 was fixed by the link officer. On 08.05.2009, learned counsel for the plaintiff appeared, but the defendant did not. 22.05.2009 was fixed. On 22.05.2009, learned counsel for the plaintiff appeared, but none appeared for the defendant. It was, therefore, directed that the suit shall proceed ex-parte against the defendants no.2, 3 & 4. 17.07.2009 was fixed for plaintiff's ex-parte evidence. On 17.07.2009, the plaintiff did not appear and, therefore, the hearing of the suit was adjourned to 17.08.2009 for plaintiff's ex-parte evidence. On 17.08.2009, nobody turned up for the plaintiff and, therefore, the hearing of the suit was adjourned to 18.09.2009 (for ex-parte evidence). Vide order dated 03.09.2009, the suit was transferred to the court of 4th Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) for disposal according to law. On the selfsame day, the file was received by the transferee court. On 18.09.2009, learned counsel for the plaintiff appeared and he made an endorsement on the margin of the ordersheet to this effect 'none appeared for the defendants."

(3.) On the next date, i.e., 05.10.2009 the plaintiff again moved an application for adjournment, which was allowed. On 05.11.2009, the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded (in the absence of defendant). On 12.11.2009, the lawyers abstained from court work. The ordersheet of 17.11.2009 indicates that the plaintiff's evidence could not be recorded, as no time was left. On 24.11.2009, the plaintiff made a statement that he has not to adduce any other evidence. Consequently, 14.12.2009 was fixed for arguments. On 14.12.2009, the hearing of the case was adjourned on the request of the plaintiff. On 23.12.2009, the arguments could not take place, as no time was left with the Court. On 06.01.2010, the trial court heard the arguments of the plaintiff and, on 11.01.2010, an ex-parte decree was passed.