V.K.Goel, J. - (1.) learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 1-2-2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hapur in Suit No. 52 of 1998 whereby the application No. 101 Ga 2 made for one month's time to produce stay order from High Court has been rejected and evidence of the plaintiff petitioner has been closed. The said order has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier he had made an application before the trial Court for deciding the preliminary issue. The said application was rejected on 8-3-1999 by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner had filed Revision No. 123 of 1999 before this Court wherein an interim order dated 24-9-1999 was obtained by him and further proceedings before the trial Court in Suit No. 52 of 1998 (Union of India versus Harnandi) was stayed for a limited period. It is submitted that the aforesaid revision was dismissed in default on 24-11-1999. An application for recall of the said order was made by the petitioner on 1-12-1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the dismissal of the revision, the trial Court proceeded with the suit and therefore, the petitioner filed an application No.100C before the trial Court seeking time to produce the order of the High Court whereby earlier order of dismissal in default would stand recalled. The trial Court granted him time. However, on 1-2-2000 the application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court. This order dated 1-2-2000 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same indicates that the trial Court having rejected the application No. 100C of the petitioner directed him to produce his evidence on the very same day.
(3.) The petitioner's application No. 101 (Ga-2) for deciding the preliminary issue first was rejected by the order impugned on the same date on the reasoning that such an application had already been decided. In this order, the trial Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is delaying the proceedings intentionally and that earlier order dated 15-9-1999 has already been passed whereby it has been directed that all the issues will be decided together against this order of the trial Court the petitioner has filed a Revision No. 414 of 1999 before this Court which is pending and there is no interim order operating. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his main grievance against the order impugned dated 1-2-2000 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) is that trial Court has closed his evidence on the very same day i.e. 1-2-2000. He submits that on 1-2-2000 two orders were passed and the same have been enclosed as Annexure-1 and Annexure-4 with the writ petition.;