IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 522 of 2009 (M/S) Ajit Singh Bhola …….. Petitioner Versus Smt. Poonam Chadha & others …….. Respondents ………. Writ Petition No. 553 of 2009 (M/S) Ajit Singh Bhola …….. Petitioner Versus Smt. Poonam Chadha & others …….. Respondents ………. Mr. V.K.Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.C.Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J. By this common order, both these petitions are being disposed of together, without issuing notices to the respondents in both the cases because, in view of the order that is proposed to be passed and for the sake of very very expeditious disposal of the suit, there is no need to issue notices to the respondents. In Writ Petition No. 522 of 2009 (M/S), the petitioner has prayed for expeditious disposal of Original Suit No. 537 of 2004 – Smt. Poonam & others Vs. Smt.Prakashwati Bhola and Others – pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun. The petitioner’s contention is that he is more than 70 years old and the suit has been lingering on for a very long time. The attention of this Court is also drawn to Order dated 16th November 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 641 (M/S) of 2005 whereby this Court had directed the learned Trial Judge to dispose of aforesaid suit within a period of nine months. More than 2½ years have elapsed since then and the suit has so far not been disposed of. This is, indeed, a very sad and sorry state of affair. 2 Writ Petition No. 522 of 2009 (M/S) is disposed of with direction to the learned Trial Judge to take all possible steps for disposing of the suit very very expeditiously and in any event before 30th August 2009 subject to the condition that this order is conveyed to the learned Court below within one week from today. With a view to ensure that the suit is disposed of before the aforesaid date, the learned Trial Court shall ensure that, first and foremost, no unnecessary adjournment is granted to any party and that in any event, the proceedings in the suit are taken up on fortnightly basis. In other words, the proceedings shall not be adjourned for more than 15 days at a time. In so far as Writ Petition No. 553 of 2009 (M/S) is concerned, in this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.04.2009 whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order 18 Rule 3A C.P.C. was rejected. Vide this application, the petitioner had prayed that he be permitted to examine witness Rakesh Oberoi before he himself appears in the witness box. After going through the contents of the order, I feel that no prejudice will be caused to either party in the suit particularly plaintiffs, if the aforesaid witness is allowed to appear before defendant no. 1 enters the witness box himself. The order dated 10.04.2009 is accordingly set aside. The petitioner’s application filed under Order 18 Rule 3 C.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner is directed to produce, on self-responsibility, the aforesaid witness in the Trial Court on 21.04.2009, the date fixed by the Trial Court in the suit. If on that date, the aforesaid witness does not appear, his evidence shall stand closed without any further reference and no further opportunity shall be granted for the production of the aforesaid witness in the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner shall take all steps for production of his evidence including the recording of his own evidence in the shortest possible time, say within a month. This order in both the petitions is being passed for the sake of expeditious disposal of the suit. If the opposite party herein in any manner 3 feel aggrieved of the passing of this order on the ground that this order tends to cause any prejudice to the opposite party, the opposite party is at liberty to approach this Court for recall/review/variation of this order. Both the petitions stand disposed of. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 16.04.2009 A