Honble JAIN, J.— This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Munsif No.2, Jodhpur dated November 9, 1993 by which he has closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner and has fixed the case for final arguments. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2). The plaintiff-non-petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of possession of the disputed premises against the defendant-petitioner. On February 15, 1992 , the plaintiff closed his evidence and April 9, 1992 was fixed for the evidence of the defendant. Thereafter, several dates were fixed for the same purpose. On November 9, 1993, the impugned order was passed.

(3). It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that the same day (9.11.93) an application was moved before the trial court that the defendants witness Kailash Chandra could not come as the plaintiff had threatened him with dire consequences if he appeared before the trial court to give his statement and has prayed that an opportunity be given for examining him on commission but the learned trial court did not care to pass any order on it. He further contended that the defendant again moved an application on December 6, 1993 for opening his evidence and giving an opportunity to produce his remaining witnesses and also to grant time to file a revision petition in the High Court and to bring stay order therefrom but the learned trial court simply gave time to file revision petition and did not give an opportunity to produce evidence. He also contended that the trial court acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in closing the defendants evidence. He lastly contended that if the defendant is not given an opportunity to produce his remaining witnesses, he would suffer an irreparable injury.

(4). In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner that the learned trial court has fixed innumerable dates for the defendants evidence and ultimately it had no alternative but to close the defendants evidence. He also contended that the said application was not moved before the impugned order was passed on November 9, 1993 and it contained false allegations. He lastly contended that Kailash Chandra is not at all a material witness.

(5). There is no substance in the revision petition. It has simply been moved to further delay the disposal of the suit. In compliance with the order dated December 21, 1993 of this Court, the defendant petitioner filed a certified copy of the entire order-sheet of the suit. It shows that the plaintiff closed his evidence on February 15, 1992, keeping his right to produce evidence in rebuttal and April 9, 1992 was fixed for defendants evidence. Thereafter, (1) 29.5.92, (2) 27.8.92, (3) 4.9.92, (4) 18.9.92, (5) 7.10.92 (6) 10.12.92, (7) 21.1.93, (8) 23.3.93, (9) 14.4.93, (10) 14.5.93, (11) 31.5.93, (16) 17.9.93, (13) 3.8.93, (14) 1.9.93, (15) 7.9.93, (16) 27.9.93, (17) 14.10.93, (18) 25.10.93 and (19) 9.11.93 were fixed for defendants evidence. In between these dates, several other dates were also fixed for disposal of applications moved by the defendant- petitioner under Order 13 rule 2 and Order 6 rule 17, C.P.C. He was also granted time to bring stay order from this Court in revisions to be filed against the orders passed on the said applications. It is clear from the order-sheet of the case that the learned trial court repeatedly adjourned the case in utter disregard of the provisions of Order 17 rule 1, C.P.C. Its provisos (b) and (c) run as under :—

"(b) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party,

(c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment."

Such liberal attitude of the trial courts is mainly responsible for the huge arrears of cases and inordinate delay in their disposal. The learned t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document