- (1.) Before the learned advocate for the petitioner opens his mouth or places his case the learned advocate for the opposite party repeatedly invited attention of this Court that on earlier two occasions directions were passed by this Court upon the petitioner to adduce evidence and further direction was passed upon the Trial Court to dispose of the proceedings. According to him the petitioner is adopting dilatory tactics and forestalling the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He insisted the Court to record such fact. Before proceeding to decide the case on merit, since the learned advocate for the opposite party is very much apprehensive and have developed a sense in his mind that the Court may overlook the orders passed in the earlier revisional applications, this Court feels that the said orders/directions passed by this Court are to be reproduced in extenso.
(2.) The revisional application, being C.O. 879 of 2014, was filed by the opposite party herein challenging an order dated 20th January, 2014, by which the Trial Court allowed an application for stay of the execution proceeding pending an application for condonation of delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court set aside the said order on the ground that the said order is lacking reasons and directed rehearing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the stay application and to dispose of the same within six weeks without granting adjournments to either of the parties. To eradicate any sense to be developed in the mind of the learned advocate for the opposite party the relevant excerpts of the said order is quoted below in order to understand true spirit of the order: "Considered the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is true that the order impugned is not a reasoned order. However, considering the facts and circumstances of this case this Court is of the view that the learned Court below if directed to dispose of the Section 5 application within a specific period of time probably it would solve the problem of the petitioner. However, the order impugned being an unreasoned order is also not sustainable. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 20th January, 2014 is set aside and the learned Court below is directed to re-hear Section 5 application as well a stay application together within a period of six weeks from date without granting any adjournment to any of the parties."
(3.) The other revisional application, being C.O. 2085 of 2016, appears to have been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 28th April, 2016 by which the evidence of the petitioner herein was closed. While disposing of the said revisional application on 20th June, 2016, this Court recalled the said order dated 28th April, 2016 and permitted the petitioner to adduce evidence upon payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- within one week therefrom. It is expressly indicated therein that if the petitioner fails to adduce evidence on the date so fixed, the Trial Court shall close the evidence of P.W. 2 and shall dispose of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure as expeditiously as possibly.;