S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6511/2008 Agar Singh Vs. Adl. Civil Judge and ors. Dated : 06.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. RDS Naruka, for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. *** By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have implored to quash and set aside the orders dated 29th May, 2008 as also order dated 19th April, 2006 whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Sikar granted last opportunity to the plaintiff respondents to produce the evidence at the cost of Rs.500/-. 2. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully scanned the impugned order as also the relevant material on record, it is noticed that one suit for eviction had been pending before the learned trial Court since 1991 wherein the issues were set out by the Court on 29th July 1991. Despite giving numerous adjournments for producing the evidence to the plaintiff, the learned trial Court further granted adjournment at the cost of Rs.100/- four times for the same but the plaintiff went on seeking adjournment after adjournment and finally on 29th May, 2008, the learned trial Court granted last opportunity at the cost of Rs.500/- to produce the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the plaintiff, inspite of giving numerous adjournments, utterly failed to produce the evidence which demonstrate that he was not at all interested in prosecuting the suit. He has further canvassed that the plaintiff took nearly 17 years to produce the evidence but failed to examine a single witness, hence, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 3. During arguments, it emerged from the perusal of the order-sheet dated 11th May, 2010 that the learned trial Court recorded the statement of the plaintiff prior to 11th May, 2010 but the learned counsel for the defendant sought adjournment to cross examine the witness. It was made clear on 11th May, 2010 that in case, the defendant failed to cross examine the plaintiff, the cross examination will be closed and he will be afforded no more opportunity for the same. The case was adjourned to 20th May, 2010. It is expected that the cross examination of the witness must have been completed by now. 4. In view of the order sheet dated 11th May, 2010, the writ petition become infructuous and the same deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 5. However, the impugned order dated 29th May, 2008 further demonstrates that the issues were set out by the learned trial Court on 29th July, 1991 and the case was adjourned for recording the evidence of the plaintiff and the same continued for a period of 17 years. This evinces that the learned trial Court remained insensitive for a long period of 17 years and mechanically adjourned the case for recording plaintiff's evidence. It is undeniably the height of unconcerned attitude on the part of all those Presiding Officers of the Court who handled this case so callously. The more astonishing episode of the story is that on the one hand, the Court demonstrated uncalled magnanimous, generous and liberal gesture in granting adjournment to the plaintiff to produce evidence and on the other hand, the plaintiff continued to be indifferent, effortless, unconcerned and careless towards his suit. Finally, the latent soul of the Presiding Officer awakened and the Court lazily granted last opportunity on 29th May, 2008 to the plaintiff to produce the evidence at the cost of Rs.500/-. 6. Keeping in view the unproductive motionless pace of the trial of the suit it becomes necessary for this Court to issue directions to the learned trial Court with regard to speedy trial. The learned trial Court is directed to fix this case on short dates sans being liberal and decide the suit positively within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order. The order of this Court be complied with truely in letter and spirit. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg