PRAN SHANKAR D PANDEYA Vs. DILIP KUMAR PANDEYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who previously came to this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2957 of 2015 with a grievance that disposal of Title Suit No. 15 of 2010and Misc. Appeal No. 07 of 2011 was delayed unnecessarily, has again come to this Court with a similar grievance. He is one of the defendants in Title Suit No. 15 of 2010, aged about 82 years.

(2.) Mr. R. P. Gupta, the learned counsel or the petitioner submits that after a direction was issued by this Court on 13.07.2015 proceeding in the suit has stretched over at least 32 hearings, still the suit has yet not been finally decided.

(3.) By an order dated 107.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2957 of 2015 this Court has observed that it is expected that the trial court would not grant unnecessary adjournment to the parties. Thereafter, if proceeding in the suit has been adjourned on 32 occasions, the mandate under Order XVII Rule 1(2) CPC obviously has not been followed by the trial Judge. Order XVII Rule 1 (1) mandates that adjournment in the suit can be granted only for reasons to be recorded in writing when sufficient cause has been shown by the party seeking adjournment. Rule 1(2) provides that if an adjournment is sought cost may be imposed as a condition for adjournment. Mandate in law is that hearing of the suit must continue from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance has been examined.