In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2162 of 2009 Date of decision: April 21, 2009 Malik Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. Madan Gopal and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhri and for staying the proceedings before the trial court. Though the suit was filed in the year 2000, but the court did not invite evidence but the evidence was invited for the first time for 19.11.2008, but on that date no evidence could be recorded and the case was adjourned to 10.1.2009. On 10.1.2009, only one witness was examined and the court closed the evidence of the plaintiff by order. The court did not bother to check for eight years why it was lingering on for nothing and the case was not fixed for evidence and why the applications could not be disposed of within a reasonable time and all this is a sheer negligence of the court and it should not be shouldered upon the plaintiff. No three clear opportunities were given to the plaintiff to lead evidence, as such interference in the impugned order by this court is called for. Resultantly, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and direct the trial court to complete the evidence of the plaintiff within six months by awarding short dates. The trial court is further advised to check the old cases pending before it as to why they are being delayed and it should not encourage superfluous applications which may be the root cause of the delay of the trial. Civil Revision No. 2162 of 2009 -2- *** This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondent may move to this court for recalling this order. April 21, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge