This case is a stark example of how Courts should not deal with civil litigation. The manner in which the case has been dealt with by the Courts and the counsel clearly indicates that none was interested in quick disposal of the case and, therefore, though more than 11(eleven) years have elapsed the case has still not been decided.

[2] The suit was filed on 23rd February, 2004 by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and eviction of the defendant and consequential relief of perpetual injunction. Along with the suit an application for stay was filed and in this application stay order was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Notice was issued to the respondents on 23rd February, 2004. The defendants put in appearance on 3rd March 2004. The arguments on the application for grant of interim relief were heard on 5th March, 2004. On 16th March, 2004 the case was fixed for 26th March, 2004 for filing of written statement. The learned trial Court restrained the defendant from proceeding further with the construction being raised by him vide order dated 16th March, 2004.Thus effectively the construction being raised was halted on that date i.e. more than 11 years back. After taking adjournments the written statement was filed on 10th May, 2004. On 15th May, 2004 issues were framed. The case was fixed for ascertaining the option of the parties whether they wanted to get the matter settled by alternate dispute redressal mechanism in terms of Section 89 of the CPC. On 20th May, 2004 the plaintiff filed a petition for amendment of the plaint. This application was contested by the defendant. Thereafter the case was adjourned on 3(three) occasions on the ground that there is a possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. Finally, on 07.12.2004 the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff was allowed. The amended plaint was thereafter filed and then the defendants filed additional written statement on 19th February, 2005.

[3] No additional issues were framed but instead of fixing the case for evidence the Court ordered that the orders on the application filed under Section Order XII Rule 8, Order XVI Rule 6 and Order XII Rule 2 CPC filed by the defendant would be considered. Orders on these applications were passed on 3rd May, 2005 and the case was listed for evidence of both the parties on 14th June, 2005. Till this date the case was moving at a reasonably decent pace. On 14th June, 2005 both the parties filed applications for grant of further time to file the affidavits of the witnesses. The case was adjourned to 19th July, 2005 when again further time was prayed and the case was adjourned to 25th August, 2005. On 25th August, 2005 the defendant No.1 filed his examination-in-chief by affidavit. The plaintiff instead of filing examination-in-chief of his witnesses filed a petition under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for issuance of commission to make local investigation. The Court held that the parties are first lead the evidence. Thereafter on 14th September, 2005 the plaintiff filed examination-in-chief of 5(five) witnesses. The plaintiff also filed 4(four) documents at this stage I do not understand how these documents which were filed after the issues had been framed could be taken on record without any application being filed in this behalf. However, that is now a closed chapter. On this date the counsel for defendant No.1 was absent and prayer was made for adjournment. On the next date i.e. 28th September, 2005 the defendant also submitted evidence of his two witnesses and filed a petition praying for allowing time for cross-examination of witnesses of the plaintiff.

[4] This system of recording evidence is totally illegal. This Court has repeatedly held that after issues are framed first the party who is to lead evidence in the beginning, in most cases the plaintiff should be called upon to lead its evidence. If the evidence is led by way of affidavits a date should be fixed for supply of copy of the affidavits well