1. T.S. Thakur, C.J., speaking for the Supreme Court in the matter of Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, emphasizing the need for speedy justice pertinently observed as under :-

“Access to justice as a constitutional value will be mere illusion; if justice is not speedy justice delay, it is famously said, is justice denied. If the process of justice is so time consuming, laborious, indolent and frustrating for those who seeks justice that it dissuades or deters them from even considering resort to that process as an option, it would tantamount to denial of not only access to justice but justice itself.”

2. Similarly, Dipak Misra, J. (as then his Lordship was) speaking for the Supreme Court qua the speedy justice of civil cases, in the matter of Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand, (2013) 5 SCC 202 has held as under:-

“Timely delivery of justice keeps the faith ingrained and establishes the sustained stability. Access to speedy justice is regarded as a human right which is deeply rooted in the foundational concept of democracy and such a right is not only the creation of law but also a natural right.”

The above stated statements of law aptly and perfectly apply to the facts of the case in hand.

3. By the impugned order dated 24.07.2018, opportunity of defendants No. 1 to 4/petitioners to cross-examine the plaintiffs' three official witnesses namely Lakhan Kashyap, Gopal Sharan Singh and D.N. Verma ex-registration clerk has been closed.

4. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the prayer for adjournment on the ground that suit is pending consideration for last 28 years and adjournment granted earlier was based on reasonable and adequate grounds and bonafide reasons. He would rely upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India v. Km. Chandra Govindji, (2000) 8 SCC 532.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 4 and considered his submissions and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

6. The instant writ petition challenging the order of learned trial Court has arisen from the civil suit instituted by sole plaintiff Pandribai (she died during the pendency of the suit) way back on 15.03.1990 for declaration of her title and permanent injunction over the suit land. In the said suit, the petitioners/defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement on 07.09.2006 and defendant No. 4 filed his written statement on 23.03.2007. It appears from the record that plaintiffs' evidence commenced in the month of July/August 2015. On 14.07.2017, plaintiffs' three official witnesses namely Lakhan Kashyap, Gopal Sharan Singh and Devendra Kumar Singh were examined, but they were not cross-examined by defendants, as defendant No. 1(a) and others filed an application under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC on the ground that his original counsel is engaged in Surajpur Court and unable to come and cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses, which was granted subject to payment of expenses to the witnesses present in the Court. The plaintiffs' witnesses namely Lakhan Kashyap and Gopal Sharan Singh again appeared before the trial Court on 15.09.2017 for their cross-examination but again on the application filed by the defendant under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC, trial Court adjourned the matter granting last opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses. On 30.01.2018, only one witness Gopal Sharan Singh appeared for cross-examination, but again he was not cross-examined by defendants as he filed an application under Section 11 CPC for dismissing the suit on the principle of res-judicata, which was rejected by the trial Court on that date. On 16.05.2018, Shri D.N. Verma, one of the plaintiffs' witnesses again appeared before the trial Court on service of summon, but again he was not examined and matter was adjourned.

7. Finally, on 24.07.2018, plaintiffs witnesses namely Gopal Sharan Singh, Lakhan Kashyap and D.N. Verma ex-r