IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 717 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 15, 2010 M/s Entrepreneurs (Calcutta) Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Kanwar Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.L.Verma, Advocate, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. The petitioner herein filed a suit for the possession, by way of specific performance, of the land in suit. The party opposite before the learned Trial Court is arrayed herein as a respondent. It is apparent from the impugned order itself that the matter was listed for that date for recording of evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. There was a request for adjournment for the purpose aforementioned. The matter came to be adjourned to 29.05.2010 for adducing of evidence on the own C.R. No. 717 of 2010 responsibility of the plaintiff-petitioner. While adjourning the case for the purpose aforementioned, the learned Trial Court also observed that arguments on stay application shall also be heard on that date. Apart from granting adjournment on the lines indicated above, the learned Trial Judge granted the following order as well:- “No evidence of the plaintiff is present. Further adjournment sought. Allowed. Now to come up on 29.05.2010 for evidence of the plaintiff at own responsibility. Arguments on stay application shall also be heard on that date. Since the plaintiff has pleaded its willingness and readiness to perform its part of contract, plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance sale consideration in the court in shape of FDR in the name of court within 30 days from today. However, the deposit shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Further, on the request of learned counsel for plaintiff it is clarified that the FD in question shall be made in the name of the court i.e. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) – cum – Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon at State Bank of Patiala, Branch Mini Secretariat, Gurgaon for three years. The Branch Manager 2 C.R. No. 717 of 2010 shall comply with the order on production of certified copy of the order.” The plaintiff-petitioner calls into question the validity of that order on an averment that there was neither any occasion nor any justification on the part of the learned Trial Court in directing the plaintiff-petitioner to deposit the balance sale consideration, in the form of an FDR, in the name of the Court. A similar controversy came up before different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and orders of this nature and category were set aside. Reference, in the context, may be made to order dated 22.12.2009 in C.R. No. 7089 of 2009 and order dated 25.01.2010 in C.R. No. 7752 of 2009. Every order granted by a judicial Court must indicate conscious application of mind to the nature of the plea raised, the resistance offered and the adjudicatory finding recorded by the Court. A judicial order cannot be granted by a Court just like that. In the present case, there is no indication that any party had applied for the issuance of a direction to the plaintiff-petitioner to make that deposit. There is also nothing in the impugned order to indicate that an opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the plaintiff-petitioner before putting him to the onerous responsibility of making deposit of a fairly large amount. In 3 C.R. No. 717 of 2010 a suit for specific performance, the learned Trial Court would be justified in granting, a similar order only if the suit comes to be decreed. When the trial is in progress, there would hardly be any justification on the part to the Court to require the plaintiff before it to deposit that amount in an FDR. Whatever weighed with the learned Trial Court in issuing that direction is not apparent from the impugned order. The nature of the order plainly defies logical comprehension. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand invalidated. A copy of this order shall be circulated to all the judicial Courts (at various hierarchical levels) in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh. March 15, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4