KRISHAN CHAND Vs. LAJ WANTI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for specific performance of the agreement filed by Krishan Chand -petitioner is pending before the trial Court since February, 1997. Proceedings in the case have not been concluded till today. The short prayer made in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is that the Court be directed to expedite the matter.

(2.) I have heard Sh. Arvind Rajotia, teamed counsel for the petitioner and I have gone through interlocutory orders passed from time to time by the trial court. The adjournments granted by the Court appear to have been given totally in disregard to the provisions envisaged under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the Code). Rule 1 of Order 17 empowers the Court to gram time and adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing. Under Rule 2, again certain norms are required to be followed by court while adjourning the case and it reads as under: -

(3.) I need not refer to all the interlocutory orders passed in the file which have been reproduced in the grounds of revision. However, perusal of the same reveals that the Court has been very liberal in granting adjournments, that too without sufficient or cogent reasons. Some of the orders read as under: -