C.R. No. 783 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 783 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.2.2009 Pushpawati J.N. Sharma Charitable Trust. ....Petitioner Versus Sh. Om Parkash Sharma and others ...Respondents 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. The application remained pending. In between the petitioner/defendant filed application for dismissal of suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The proceedings continued thereon and it was only on February 10, 2009 that the application was got dismissed as not pressed. On February 12, 2009 the Court below issued notices to defendants No.3 to 7. Today learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.7 states in the Court that he will appear for unserved defendants in the suit as well as they are trustees only. This fact could very well be pointed out to the Court below when the notices were directed to be issued to them. But still before the Court below the parties remained silent on that issue. This shows that even the petitioner was not pursuing his case diligently. As far as the prayer of counsel for the petitioner for a direction to learned Court below for early disposal of the case is concerned, the matter regarding early disposal of old cases has already been taken up on administrative side, accordingly, no directions on judicial side is required to be issued. As far as the manner in which the case has been dealt with I deem it appropriate to direct placing of the order before the learned Administrative side of Chandigarh for his perusal. The revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 16.2.2009 JUDGE Reema