- (1.) The plaintiffs have filed this petition against the order dated 03.05.2014 by which their evidence has been closed. In short, the plaintiffs filed the suit on 30.11.2006 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 23.10.2002. The issues were framed on 02.04.2009 and the plaintiffs were asked to lead their evidence on 04.05.2009. The trial Court has mentioned 35 dates on which the case was listed before it for the evidence of the plaintiffs before the impugned order was passed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that oh 10.06.2009, two witnesses of the plaintiffs were present and examined. On 11.08.2009, the defendants filed an application under Order 18 Rule 3(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") asking the plaintiffs to examine themselves as witnesses before the other witnesses. On 17.09.2009, it was found by the Court that an application filed under Order 15 Rule 2 of the CPC was pending. The said application was decided on 20.10.2009, however, one witness of the plaintiffs, namely, T.R. Sharma was present but the defendants did not examine him and the matter was adjourned to 13.11.2009 and on that date, PW Aran Goyal tendered his affidavit and the case was adjourned to 01.12.2009 for cross-examination of that witness as well as for remaining unexamined PWs and for consideration of the application filed under Order 15 Rule 2 of the CPC. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on 2 dates because one of the plaintiffs had suffered an injury and the case listed on 25.03.2010 was taken up on 22.03.2010 because the Presiding Officer was going on leave and adjourned it to 12.05.2010 and on that date, the case was transferred to some other Court. On 26.07.2010, no PW was present and the case was adjourned to 09.08.2010 but on 09.08.2010 though the PWs were present but cross-examination was not conducted by the defendants and even on the next date, they were not cross-examined and the matter was adjourned for few dates and on 27.05.2011, it was again transferred to another Court. On 17.10.2011, an application was filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC which was allowed on the next date and ultimately, the pleadings were completed. On 04.02.2012, PW Arun Goyal tendered into evidence his amended affidavit and the case was fixed for his cross examination which was not conducted on the request of the defendants and on 26.05.2014, his part cross-examination was recorded. On 15.11.2012, the plaintiff was present but his cross-examination was not conducted. On 23.01.2013, the Local Commissioner was appointed for the plaintiffs' evidence with the direction that he would complete the proceedings on or before 13.02.2013 and the case was adjourned to 13.02.2013 but on that date, the petitioner filed an application under Order 20 Rule 13 of the CPC and the case was adjourned to 26.02.2013. On 26.02.2013, reply to the application was filed and the matter was adjourned to 20.04.2013 for consideration on the stay application. However, on 18.04.2013, the case was again taken up by the Presiding Officer because he was on leave. On 06.08.2013, the case was adjourned to 17.07.2013 for consideration on application under Order 20 Rule 13 of the CPC which was ultimately dismissed on 22.01.2014. Thereafter, the case was adjourned w.e.f. 05.02.2014, 12.02.2014, 28.02.2014, 14.03.2014 and 15.04.2014 and the Court had recorded that the case is fixed for defendants' evidence and ultimately on 03.05.2014, the impugned order was passed.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the trial Court, to whom the case was transferred on 03.05.2014, should have at least given One more opportunity to the petitioners to complete their entire evidence instead of closing the evidence on the ground that the petitioners have already availed many opportunities. She has also questioned the working of the trial Court as in the last 6 zimni orders, the trial Court has wrongly recorded that the case was fixed for D.Ws. which means that there was a total non-application of mind even while recording the zimni orders which should portray the true state of affairs which transpires in the Court proceedings. She has also submitted that the learned trial Court has also not cared to follow the orders passed by this Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. And another v. M/s. Ohm Forex Services Ltd., CR No. 5009 of 2010, decided on 11.11.2010, which was circulated to all the Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh for compliance in which the direction was given to the Courts below to specifically record the names of the advocate appearing for a particular party, whereas in the zimni orders dated 12.02.2014, it is mentioned as "As above" and in the zimni orders dated 14.03.2014 and 15.04.2014, it is mentioned as "counsel for the plaintiff' and "counsel for the defendant" and not their names.;