Bakshish Kaur, J. - (1.) A suit for specific performance of the agreement filed by Krishan Chand -petitioner is pending before the trial Court since February, 1997. Proceedings in the case have not been concluded till today. The short prayer made in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is that the Court be directed to expedite the matter.
(2.) I have heard Sh. Arvind Rajotia, teamed counsel for the petitioner and I have gone through interlocutory orders passed from time to time by the trial court. The adjournments granted by the Court appear to have been given totally in disregard to the provisions envisaged under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the Code). Rule 1 of Order 17 empowers the Court to gram time and adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing. Under Rule 2, again certain norms are required to be followed by court while adjourning the case and it reads as under: - "2. Costs of Agreement : In every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the adjournment: provided that, - (a) when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day -to -day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for the exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary, (b) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of the party, (c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment, (d) where the illness of a pleader or his inability to conduct the case for any reason, other than his being engaged in another court, is put forward as a ground for adjournment, the Court shall not grant the adjournment unless it is satisfied that the party applying for adjournment could not have engaged another pleader in time, (e) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader, though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross -examine the witness, the Court may, if it thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination -in -chief or cross -examination of the witness, as the case may be, by the party or his pleader not present or not ready as aforesaid."
(3.) I need not refer to all the interlocutory orders passed in the file which have been reproduced in the grounds of revision. However, perusal of the same reveals that the Court has been very liberal in granting adjournments, that too without sufficient or cogent reasons. Some of the orders read as under: - "13.6.2000 Present: Counsel for the parties. PWs Krishan Chand are present but counsel for defendant submits that he will be unable to cross examine the witnesses since he is to conduct a time bound case in the Court of Sh. M.S. Chauhan as well as he has filed revision against the order passed by the Court refusing to implead LRs of the deceased Jagat Ram. To come up on 22.8.2000 for the evidence of the plaintiff." "22.8.2000 Present : Counsel for the parties. PW Krishan Chand is present and his cross examination has been party recorded. The Court time is over. Now, to come up on 14.9.2000 for further cross examination of this witness." "14.9.2000 Present: Counsel for the parties. PW Krishan Chand is present and his statement has been partly recorded due to overtime of the Court. Now, to come up on 30.10.2000 for further cross examination of the witness." "05.12 -2000 Present: Counsel for the parties. PW Krishan Chand is present and his cross examination has been partly recorded since the court time is over. Now, to come up on for further cross examination of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's directed to appear on the next date of hearing at 10.00 A.M. (Sharp)." "02.02 -2001 Present: Counsel for the plaintiff Proxy counsel for defendant. An application has been filed on behalf of the defendant to the effect that he is unable to attend the Court today. In view of the reason mentioned in the application and on the request of the proxy counsel, case stands adjourned to 12.3.2001 for cross examination of the plaintiff and other remaining evidence of the plaintiff be produced on the date fixed. It has come to my notice that another application for directing the defendant No. 2 to give thumb impression is pending decision. Its reply be also filed on the date fixed.";