AMIT LAMBA Vs. SUNDER LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this order the parties are referred to by their original positions in the suit. Plaintiff has brought this revision against the order dated August 02, 2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak closing his remaining evidence by order.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of a contract of sale dated July 16, 2009 of a commercial property in Rohtak. The plaintiff is an NRI and lives and works for gain in the United Arab Emirates. Issues in the suit were framed on February 02, 2013. Plaintiff's first opportunity to lead evidence was available to him on March 13, 2013 but a request for adjournment was made. In the Court hearing on April 08, 2013 the learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that there are chances of the matter being compromised. The matter was adjourned for June 11, 2013 for aiding a compromise to settle the matter between the parties. However, June 11, 2013 was declared a holiday by this Court and the case was taken up beforehand and adjourned suo motu to July 24, 2013. When this happened on June 01, 2013 learned counsel on either side for reasons obvious did not not know of it, neither were they required to be put to notice of court adjournment. On July 24, 2013 the Court was informed that the compromise could not be effected and parties sought time for consideration on the stay application on merits. Thus, the matter was adjourned for consideration on the stay application filed earlier under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff against further alienation of the property in dispute etc. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to the following day when a joint request was made for an adjournment for consideration on the stay application and the matter was posted for August 21, 2013. On August 21, 2013 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was posted for August 27, 2013 for proper orders. An actual date was then fixed for September 26, 2013 for arguments on the stay application. On September 26, 2013 it is recorded in the zimni order that "Arguments not ready. Adjournment requested." The matter was thus posted for October 28, 2013 on the pending application and for the same purpose. On October 28, 2013 a peculiar order was passed by the trial Court which reads:-

(3.) It appears that both the parties were not prepared to advance arguments on the stay application on October 28, 2013 and instead had jointly requested for an adjournment which was accepted and granted for November 21, 2013 but just for recording of the remaining evidence of the plaintiff but not for consideration on the pending application cremated rather unceremoniously and without much ado. It was further recorded on the order sheet and for the first time that it would be the last opportunity. Last opportunity here meant for production of evidence of the plaintiff. This order was repeated on November 21, 2013 and the case again posted for December 03, 2013. On the adjourned date, the plaintiff witness-1 was in attendance in court and his cross-examination was partly recorded but his further cross-examination was deferred as court time by then was over. This was the third effective opportunity hitherto fore given to the plaintiff to produce his evidence. The case was adjourned to January 15, 2014 for remaining cross-examination and remaining evidence of plaintiff. The last opportunity earlier given was ordered to stand. On January 15, 2014 two of the plaintiff's other witnesses were present and were examined. However, PW-1 was not cross-examined by the defendants. The case was adjourned to March 17, 2014 for the same purpose. It transpired that March 17, 2014 was declared a holiday and therefore the matter was taken up suo motu two days before the coming date and the case was adjourned to May 06, 2014 when neither of the parties was present. On May 06, 2014 the following order was passed:-