- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) WHILE issuing notice to the respondents in the present writ petition, this Court passed following interim order on 07.12.2009:- "By this writ petition, the order dated 1.8.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Case No.321/1996 has been challenged. By the said order, the application under Section 33 of the Evidence Act filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in suit for specific performance has been rejected by the learned trial court Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Annex.7, the order dated 2.5.2007 same application under Section 33 of the Evidence Act was rejected by the learned trial court which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of Writ Petition S.B.C.W.P. No.10391/2009 Harjinder Singh Vs. Kor Singh and Anr. Order dt: 19/03/2013 No.7625/2005-Harjinder Singh Vs. Kor Singh and Anr. which came to be allowed by this Court on 30.6.2008 with the following observations:- "In the aforesaid view of the matter, for the learned Trial Court having not taken into comprehension the relevant aspects as are available on the record and having not applied the relevant principles of law, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears appropriate to set aside the order impugned and to remit the matter to the Trial Court to deal with the application under Section 33 of the Evidence Act after examining the material place on record and while applying the relevant principles and keeping in view the observations made above. It is, of course, made clear that this Court has not pronounced anything on the merits of the case of the parties or on the effect of the evidence of the said witnesses. Subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is allowed; and the impugned order dated 02.05.2007 is set aside. The application under Section 33 of the Evidence Act shall stand restored for re-consideration of the Trial Court in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs of this writ petition." Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial court has again rejected upon so called reconsideration of the same application under Section 33 of the Act virtually repeating the previous order without showing any application of mind in pursuance of order/directions of this Court in the judgment dated 30.6.2008. A bare perusal and comparison of two orders indicates that the learned trial court has not applied its mind at all to the judgment passed by this Court and has not considered the application under Section 33 of the Evidence Act in the correct perspective at all and has S.B.C.W.P. No.10391/2009 Harjinder Singh Vs. Kor Singh and Anr. Order dt: 19/03/2013 reiterated the previous order in complete disregard of the judgment of this Court. This is a very serious matter where the Judicial Officer has cared very less for the judgment passed by this Court in the same matter. Unfortunately the name of Presiding Officer is not mentioned in the seal affixed on the said both the orders. In order to have the name and designation of the Presiding Officer clearly before this Court, Registrar General of this Court should henceforth direct all the Presiding Officers working in the State to write their names clearly or seal should contain their name and designation which should invariably be affixed on all the orders signed by them so that the Court in appropriate cases may make suitable directions for supervision of their working or orders passed which is the intent of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the two orders in the present case also reflects badly on the conduct of the Presiding Officer, who has passed the later order dated 4.9.2009. Therefore, a copy of this order also be endorsed to the Registrar (Vigilance) who may call for explanation from the Presiding Officer, who has passed the impugned order on 1.8.2009 and place such explanation before this Court on the next date. In the facts and circumstances of the case, issue notice to the respondents as to why this writ petition be not admitted and disposed of at this stage. Issue notice of stay petition also. Notices be filed in two sets. Notices are made returnable within one week. One set of notices be given dasti. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to serve the respondents by 17.12.2009 with the certified S.B.C.W.P. No.10391/2009 Harjinder Singh Vs. Kor Singh and Anr. Order dt: 19/03/2013 copy of this order along with the memo of appeal to the trial court also. In the meanwhile, the further proceedings in Civil Original Case No.321/1996- (Harjinder Singh Vs. Kaur Singh) pending before the Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Sri Gangangar shall remain stayed. Put up on 17.12.2009." The trial is since stayed in the aforesaid civil suit and, therefore, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, it is considered expedient to dispose of this writ petition in the following terms.
(3.) THE impugned order dated 01.08.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer [Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No.2, Sri Ganganagar] is again set aside and the matter is restored back to the learned trial court. A copy of this order may be sent to the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who will transfer the proceedings from the said Presiding Officer, if she continues to be still in the same Court to any other appropriate court for consideration of the case further.;