Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) VIDE order dated 29. 10. 2003, the prayer made by the defendant that the undersigned should consider recusing himself from the case, was declined for reasons to follow. Now I proceed to give reasons.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT, appearing in person on 23. 10. 2003, submitted that the undersigned should consider recusing himself from the case. He stated that he has gathered an impression that the Court is of the view that the defendant was wasting the time of the Court and his submissions were being treated with contempt and disdain. He felt that the plaintiff and others present in Court were mocking at him. Defendant submitted that the order sheets disclose a certain bias inasmuch as when the defendant wanted an adjournment for inspection of the file, the order sheets give an impression that the defendant had been given enough time to inspect the file. The Court has also appointed an amicus curiae on the question whether the allegations of the defendant in filing an application for another Hon ble Judge of this Court to recuse himself, constituted contempt or not? This was hanging as a sword of Democeles on him.

( 3 ) BEFORE proceeding to consider the above submissions, it would be relevant to briefly notice the proceedings that have taken place so far in this suit.

( 4 ) THE present suit for partition had been filed by the plaintiff, Mr. Saurabh Prakash against his brother Mr. Samir Prakash, the defendant herein. Plaintiff and the defendant both happen to be advocates and sons of late Dr. Anand Prakash. The suit had been instituted on 12. 8. 1997. Written statement was filed in May, 1998 and pleadings were completed thereafter. On 28. 5. 1998, plaintiff moved an application IA. No. 4913/98 under Order XII Rule 6, CPC seeking a preliminary decree for partition on admissions since the shares in the properties were not being disputed. Adjournments were sought to file reply to this application between 28. 5. 1998 to 3. 4. 2000. On 3. 4. 2000, the right to file reply was closed. In view of an amendment in the plaint, defendant was again permitted on 21. 8. 2000 to file reply. However reply was not filed. On 19. 4. 2001, it was again ordered that right to file reply already stood closed. Thereafter, defendant sought amendment of the written statement, which was allowed. On 16. 10. 2001, defendant sought adjournment on the ground that he had an infected throat. Thereafter, on 11. 1. 2002, he sought adjournment on the hearing of the application on the ground that he wanted to move an application for impleadment of his mother as a necessary party. The application for impleadment was not filed.

( 5 ) IN the meanwhile, FAO (OS ). 47/02 was filed. The Division Bench thereupon vide order dated 14. 2. 2002, took the suit on record before itself along with the Appeal. A number of Chamber hearings were held. The Division Bench thereafter vide order dated 30. 5. 2002, released the suit and directed it to be heard by the Single Judge, with a direction that endeavour be made to expeditiously decide all pending applications. The appellant/plaintiff preferred an appeal FAO (OS ). 375/02, submitting that despite the order of the Division Bench dated 30. 5. 2002 to decide pending applications, as expeditiously as possible, the matter was being adjourned by the then learned Single Judge. The Division Bench has kept the appeal pending and expressed the hope that pending applications, would now be heard and disposed of expeditiously, without any further delay.

( 6 ) TWO Hon ble Judges declined to hear this matter. The suit thereafter came up before a third Hon ble Judge who also recused himself. The matter was then directed to be listed before another Single Judge being the fourth Judge. Defendant moved an application before the Judge-In-Charge, Original Side for withdrawal of the suit from the Court of Single Judge to whom the case was assigned. It was alleged that on account of illegalities, misrepresentations, false statements and prod

Click Here to Read the rest of this document