- (1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for early disposal of the Money Suit No. 02 of 2008 (Shri G. L. Sharma v. Shri J. K. Sharma and Another) and Other Suit No. 83 of 2009 (Shri J.K. Sharma and Others v. G.L.Sharma and Others) pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair.
(2.) ON perusal of the prayer portion of the revisional application, it appears that the petitioners plaintiffs of Other Suit No. 83 of 2009 have prayed inter alia for issuance of a direction upon the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Andaman at Port Blair to dispose of both the suits namely Money Suit No. 02/2008 filed by the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 as also other suit No. 83 of 2009 filed by them within a period of six months hearing the same analogously or fixing same day without allowing any adjournment to any of the parties. The prayer appears to be innocuous. Before dealing with the relief as sought for by the revisionist it would be convenient to look into the averments made by the petitioner in this revisional application for a better appreciation of the backdrop of the present case. In paragraph 9 of the petition, the petitioner No. 1 has averred that he is aged about 75 years and suffering from various aliments and all his family members are in mainland and as such it is not possible for him to wait for a long time for a decision of both the suits. He being a senior citizen, deserves preference over and above other cases pending before the learned trial Court. His further grievance ventilated therein is that, both the suits are almost at the stage of evidence and, therefore, the same are required to be disposed of within a specified time limit but the learned Court below is fixing the date after a long gap and such a situation is clearly discernable from the order sheets of both the suits. Appearing in support of the revision it is submitted by Mr. N. A. Khan learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/ petitioners that the said money suit is pending for about two years while the other suit in question is also pending for about three years. It is further argued by him that the parties of both the suits would be equally benefited if their respective claim is adjudicated expeditiously within a specified time frame. By referring to xerox copies of order sheets of both the suits annexed to the petition, it is pointed out by him that both the suits had unnecessarily been dragged years together causing much hardship to both the sides. Therefore, an order directing expeditious disposal of these suits either analogously or one after another is necessitated because of the exigencies of circumstances enumerated in the writ petition itself. Dates are being fixed at long interval without taking into consideration the plight of the revisionist No. 1 who happens to be a senior citizen as also parties in both the suits either as a plaintiff or as a defendant. Therefore, the necessary direction as sought for in order to ensure speedy disposal of the case, if passed, would serve the ends of justice.
(3.) SUCH submission is, however, strongly disputed on behalf of the opposite parties on the ground that the suits in question should not be given priority over all other pending suits for its expeditious disposal before the learned Court below. According to him, if the learned trial Judge is directed to take up the hearing of the suit on day-to-day basis ignoring his daily business schedule, it would seriously disturb the schedule already fixed by the learned trial Court. In this context, he has referred to an unreported judgment of the Single Bench of this Court delivered in CR.No. 018 of 2010 in support of his contention. I have taken into consideration the rival contention of the learned Counsel of both the parties with reference to averments made in the petition as also ordersheets of both the suits annexed to the petition and the judgment referred to hereinbefore.;