Pushpawati J.N. Sharma Charitable Trust v. Sh. Om Parkash Sharma & Ors.

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. M.S. Rakkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the learned Court below for early disposal of the suit field by the respondents/plaintiffs, which is pending since the year 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced various interim orders passed by learned Court below. He specifically referred to the order passed on July 30, 2004 whereby an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. On November 26, 2004, it was recorded in the order passed by the learned Court below that reply to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been filed in Court and copy has been supplied to counsel opposite. The case was adjourned to January 14,

2005. Thereafter for 17 hearings upto November 10, 2005 the case was adjourned recording that reply to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has not been filed or on the request of counsel for the parties. On November 28, 2005, it was noticed that reply to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC had already been filed and the case was adjourned to December 12, 2005 for consideration of the amendment application. Even after that case was adjourned for 14 hearings on request of counsel for the parties upto October 12, 2006. In order dated November 28, 2006, it was noticed that on

19.5.2006 an application was filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of suit. It is noticed in the order passed on December 7, 2006 that reply to the application was filed. However, thereafter the case was adjourned for consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for twenty-one hearings on request of counsel for the parties. The petition was filed in this Court on February 6, 2009 with a prayer for a direction to learned Court below for early disposal of the suit. The file of the trial Court was summoned. It shows that on February 10, 2009 learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant got his statement recorded that he C.R. No. 783 of 2009 (O&M) 2 does not have any objection to the amendment of the plaint subject to payment of costs. He further submitted that he did not have any objection even for consolidation of the two suits together. Still further his stand was that he does not press his application dated May 19, 2006 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of suit with liberty to take all the pleas in the written statement.

Inspite of statement of learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant on February 10, 2009, the case was adjourned for further consideration for February 12, 2009, for which there was nor reason whatsoever. Once the counsel had made a statement that he did not have any objection to the acceptance of the application for amendment and also for dismissal of his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC there was no reason to adjourn the case for the purpose of consideration. The orders on those applications was required to be passed there and then. It clearly shows casual attitude of the Court. However, this is one side of the story. The fact remains that the parties are not interested in pursuing the case. As has already been noticed above after filing of application for amendment and even reply thereto the case was being adjourned while noticing that no reply to the application had been filed but still none of the counsels pointed out that reply had already been filed.