HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 361 of 2010 (M/S) Kurban Ali ………..Petitioner Versus Dharma Chand and others. …….Respondents Shri B.B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4. Dated: 26 April, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.02.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Roorkee and also for the direction to the Civil Judge (S.D.) to allow to petitioner’s counsel to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff. Prayer has also been made to issue directions for conducting survey of the disputed land in khasra no. 1308 situated at Chowmandi Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent no.1 Dharam Chand instituted a Original Suit No. 137 of 2001 ‘Dharam Chand and othes vs. Ajayab Singh and others’ before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Roorkee, District Haridwar against the defendants including the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved application for no.12-C and 68-C-2 in which 20.02.2010 was fixed for disposal of 68-C-2 application. On 20.02.2010 the petitioner moved an application for adjournment which was not accepted and 68-C-2 was rejected. 3. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 have filed their counter affidavit, in which refuting the contentions made in the petition the respondents have interalia, stated that the 2 petitioner cleverly succeeded to fabricate a forged power of attorney of the land in question by projecting forged Ajaib Singh in place of real owner of the land in dispute. The petitioner has executed a sale deed on the basis of said power of attorney of Ajaib Singh, which is the subject matter of said civil suit pending before the Trial Court. Evidence in the aforesaid suit has already been completed. The petitioner is lingering the matter as more than 18 adjournments have been taken by the petitioner. 4. I have hard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri B.B. Sharma and Shri Ajay Veer Pundir for the respondent nos.2 to 4 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of suit, the petitioner filed 12-C and 68-C before the Trial Court but his application was not decided in time. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition no.1340 of 2009 (M/S) in which this Court passed an order on 20.08.2009, directing the Trial Court to decide 12-C and 68-C applications expeditiously. 6. From the perusal of record it appears that application no.12-C was decided by the Trial Court on 28.11.2001 but 68-C could not be decided due to adjournment application filed by the petitioner. The application was listed on 02.01.2010 but no one was present from the side of petitioner on that day, then the case was adjourned to 09.02.2010 and on that day, an application for adjournment was moved by the petitioner, which was allowed subject to cost of Rs 450/. On 09.02.2010 again an adjournment application was moved by the petitioner which was allowed subject to cost Rs 3 500/- fixing 20.02.2010 as last opportunity. On 02.02.2010, an application for adjournment was moved by the petitioner on the ground that his Advocate Abdul Salam had to go to Delhi for the treatment of his father. This application was not allowed on the ground that in addition to Mr. Abdul Salam there were 5 advocates namely Shamim Ahmed, Sushil Gupta, Afzaal, Rakesh Singh Rana and B.B. Sharma and their Vakalatnama were on record. The Trial Court also considered application 68- C, which was rejected by the trial court stating in the order that nothing was said by Mohd. Raees in support of application 68-C. It was further observed in the order that since no witness on behalf of respondent no.3 was present in the Court, therefore, opportunity of producing evidence was also not granted to defendant no.3. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there were 4-5 advocates on record but the case was to be argued by Shri Abdul Salam, Advocate. Due to this reason other advocates did not appear in the Court and only Shri Mohd. Rais appeared in the Court and prayed for adjournment. He further submitted that the cross examination of the witness is extremely necessary for proper adjudication of the case. On the other hand Shri Ajay Veer Pundir made strong objection. He submitted that the petitioner for one reason or the other is getting the case adjourned several times and, in fact, considering his conduct on 02.02.2010 he should not be given any further opportunity. 8. During the course of arguments, Shri B.B. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press relief no. 2 in the writ petition. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this relief no.2 with liberty to avail appropriate remedy. Therefore, the prayer no.2 is dismissed as not pressed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire material available on record, in the interest of justice, this Court thinks it fit and proper that incase, one further opportunity is given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and produce his entire evidence on the next date fixed, the ends of justice will meet. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and lead his evidence before the Trial Court on the next date fixed or any other date fixed by the Court subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff/respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. The Trial Court shall decide the Original Suit No. 137 of 2001 ‘Dharam Chand and othes vs. Ajayab Singh and others’ expeditiously. Learned counsel for the parties undertake that they will cooperate in the expeditious disposal of suit. (V.K. Bist, J.) 26.04.2010 Arpan