Judgment:
S.K. Mahajan, J.
Admit.
1. With the consent of parties the matter has been heard and is being disposed of finally.
2. The Trial Court had framed issues on 16.7.91 and the matter was adjourned to 3.2.92 for plaintiff's evidence. Evidence could not be recorded on that date as the plaintiff was not well and medical certificate was produced on that date and the matter was, thereforee, adjourned to 15.7.92. On that date also no evidence of the plaintiff was present and the case was adjourned subject to payment of Rs. 300/- as costs. Thereafter the matter was adjourned till 26.8.97 from time to time for hearing arguments on various applications including the application of defendant/respondent for amendment of the written statement. On 26.8.97, the Court observed that no additional issues were required to be framed and the case was listed for plaintiff's evidence on 13.1.98. The plaintiff filed list of witnesses on 11.12.97 and the same was taken on record. On 13.1.98, the Court did not have time as the Presiding Officer was to go to another Court for giving evidence. The case was, thereforee, adjourned to 8.5.98, on which date evidence of one of the witness of plaintiffs was recorded and the case was adjourned to 21.8.98 for remaining evidence of the plaintiff. On 21.8.98, against only one witness of the plaintiff was examined and the case was adjourned to 10.9.98 for respondent's evidence. On 10.9.98, the witness summoned from the Rationing Department was present but he did not bring the summoned record and the case was, thereforee, adjourned to 16.3.99 for plaintiff's evidence on which date the Presiding officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 16.7.99 for proper order. On 16.7.99 the matter was adjourned to 18.11.99 but again on 18.11.99, the Presiding officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 24.11.199 for proper orders. Though the matter was fixed for proper orders on 24.11.99, the Court, however, observed that no PW was present and the case was adjourned to 9.2.2000. In the meantime, the Counsel who was conducting this case on behalf of the plaintiff was appointed a Counsel on the panel of Delhi Development Authority and since the case was against the DDA, the Counsel wanted to be discharged from the case and a new Counsel was engaged. When the matter came up for hearing on 9.2.99, the new Counsel filed his Vakalatnama and also examined one of the witnesses who was present in Court. An adjournment was thereafter sought by the plaintiff to examine the remaining evidence, however, the Court after observing that issues were framed on 16.7.91 and no list of witness was filed closed the evidence of the plaintiff.
3. An application for review of the order dated 9.2.99 was filed which was dismissed by the Court by the impugned order dated 8.5.2000 after holding that filing of the list of witnesses was not relevant since they were required to be filed within 15 days from 16.7.91 when the issues were framed. It was also held by the Court that non-examination of the witnesses and the pendency of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 and under Order 23 Rule 3 was not relevant for decision as to whether or not an adjournment should have been given on 9.2.99 for recording of evidence.
4. In my opinion, by closing the evidence of the plaintiff, an irreparable injury has been caused and by not granting one more opportunity to the plaintiff to examine his remaining witness the Trial Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction has acted illegally and with material irregularity. The learned Trial Court has completely overlooked its own record while passing the impugned orders inasmuch as the delay from 1992 to 1998 was not on account of the plaintiff but it was on account of the Court having not disposed of the pending applications including the application of the defendant for amendment of the plaint. Even after 13.1.98, the case was adjourned on many dates because of the learned Presiding Officer being on leave. The learned Trial Court also failed to notice that immediately before 9.2.99 the Counsel who was conducting the case was appointed on the panel of DDA and could not, thereforee, conduct the case on behalf of the plaintiff. Moreover, the observations of the Trial Court that issues were framed in 1991 and no list of witnesses was filed are also not borne out from the record. The Trial Court itself had fixed 26.8.97 as the date for framing of issues after amendment of the written statement and when it was stated by the parties that no fresh issue arises, the case was adjourned to 13.1.98 for evidence. In the meantime the plaintiff had filed list of witnesses which was taken on record. It is thus to be seen that the closing of evidence on these two grounds has not only occasioned a failure of justice but the Court has also acted with material irregularity. In case this order is not set aside, it would result in irreparable injury to the plaintiff.
5. I, accordingly, allow this petition and set aside the orders dated 9.2.2000 and 8.5.2000 and grant one more opportunity to the plaintiff to examine witnesses on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. This will, however, be subject to the payment of Rs. 1000/- as costs.
6. Petition allowed with costs.