cw-5391/2008 -Jeevan Ram Vs. Gokul Chand & Ors. Order dt.6.8.08 1/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5391/2008 Jeevan Ram Vs. Gokul Chand & Ors. Date of order : 06th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. V.K. Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Choudhary for the respondents. --------- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.7.2008 whereby the learned trial court rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner seeking to postpone the evidence of plaintiff merely on the ground that the defendant had filed an application in the Court and there were certain papers of the Court file, which were missing from the Court file and, therefore, the trial should not proceed further. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Advocate of the plaintiff Khoob Chand Chachan had been earlier Advocate in some other related matter for the defendant and, therefore, he could not represent the plaintiff. He submitted that the Vakalatnama of Khoob Chand Chachan in the said file was removed and the trial court in the order Annex.3 had given a finding that in the earlier case referred by the defendant, in fact, the Advocate Mool Chand had appeared and on account of typing error in place of name Mool Chand, the name of Khoob Chand Chachan was typed and, therefore, said Advocate Khoob Chand Chachan could appear for the cw-5391/2008 -Jeevan Ram Vs. Gokul Chand & Ors. Order dt.6.8.08 2/3 plaintiff. The other papers which were alleged to be missing from the said file as per application Annex.6 and one application under Section 151 C.P.C. dated 20.12.2005, another application under Section 24 C.P.C. and Fard (index) dated 5.9.2005. 4. The learned trial court in the order dated 23.7.2008 has held that irrespective of enquiry into the said missing papers there was no need to stop the trial and, therefore, directed the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses, who was 73 years old and had appeared before the Court for cross-examination on 23.7.2008 and at the request of the plaintiff's counsel the next date was fixed 24.7.2008 for his cross-examination on 24.7.2008 the defendant did not cross- examine the said witnesses but prayed for 10 days time to produce the stay order from the High Court against the proceeding of the trial. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant also submits that he has filed a complaint against the said Advocate Mr. Khoob Chand Chachan in the Bar Council as also against the Presiding Officer which is pending before the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the defendant is a reticent kind of litigant who does not want the trial to proceed and by hook and crook wants to delay and defeat the fair trial in question. The kind of flying allegations made by the defendant before the trial court apparently shows that he is not interested in facing the trial but can go to the extent of leveling allegations against the Advocate concerned and cw-5391/2008 -Jeevan Ram Vs. Gokul Chand & Ors. Order dt.6.8.08 3/3 even Presiding Officer. Be that as it may, the trial court appears to have rightly held that irrespective of enquiry into the missing papers from the said file, the trial should proceed and this Court finds no illegality in the same. 7. The writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. The same is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.s/2 babulal/-