The court emphasized that it is a statutory duty of the court to decide the suit expeditiously, but not in a manner that may cause prejudice to any of the parties.

JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Challenging order dated 21.09.2010 by which the learned trial Judge has directed the plaintiff to file examination-in-chief of all his witnesses and produce all material documents, and order dated 01.10.2010 by which plaintiff''s evidence was closed, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. Title Suit No. 130 of 2007 was instituted for a declaration of title of the plaintiff''s and proforma-respondent Nos. 2 & 3 over the suit schedule land and a declaration that the sale-deed dated 18.01.1991 is sham, forged and fabricated document. A prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant''s men from negotiating the suit schedule land with any other person has also been made. Issues were framed in the suit on 15.03.2008 and it was fixed for plaintiff''s evidence. The plaintiff filed examination-in-chief by way of affidavit of P.W.1 on 09.09.2008 and a Pleader Commissioner was appointed for cross-examination of P.W.1. Cross-examination of P.W.1 was returned on 02.02.2009. The plaintiff filed material documents on 08.05.2009 and the matter was adjourned for 08.06.2009 for further evidence. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 filed an application on 08.07.2009 to expunge evidence of the witnesses namely, Arun Kumar and V. Murmu. This application was heard on 01.08.2009, 24.08.2009 and 15.09.2009. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application on 30.10.2009 for directing the defendant to produce the original sale-deed and an application for returning the examination-in-chief of plaintiff''s witness-Virendra Singh after his cross-examination in presence of the Pleader Commissioner was also filed. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the defendant No. 1 took several adjournments for filing rejoinder to the application dated 30.10.2009 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 13.01.2010. Thereafter, an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC was filed on 02.02.2010 by the plaintiff for impleadment of respondent No. 4 who is the subsequent purchaser. This application was allowed vide order dated 27.07.2010 and the contesting defendant was directed to produce original sale-deed dated 18.01.1991 vide order dated 04.08.2010. The newly added respondent No. 4 filed his written statement on 23.08.2010 and 06.09.2010. At this stage, the learned trial Judge felt that the suit has been delayed by the plaintiff and accordingly he directed the plaintiff to produce examination-in-chief of all his witnesses on or before 01.10.2010 and on the next date of hearing plaintiff''s evidence was closed.

3. The facts narrated here-in-above do not indicate that the plaintiff has intentionally delayed the trial in Title Suit No. 130 of 2007. Even otherwise also a defendant may be in a hurry to get the suit disposed of, if not the plaintiff, and under Order 17, Rule 1 and 2 CPC this is a statutory duty of the court to decide the suit expeditiously, but definitely not in a manner which may cause prejudice to any of the parties to the suit. By no stretch of imagination it can be conceived, why and how the plaintiff can be directed to produce examination-in-chief of all the witnesses together and that too within a short span of ten days. The trial Judge has, in my opinion, committed serious error in law which has caused serious prejudice to the plaintiff.

4. Finding serious infirmity in the impugned orders dated 21.09.2010 and 01.10.2010, these are set-aside. The writ petition stands allowed, however, to take care of anxiety of the defendants as projected by their learned counsels appearing in the present proceeding, it is expected that trial in Title Suit No. 130 of 2007 shall conclude expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, but for just and valid reason.

5. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.