Judgment S.B.Sanyal, J. 1. These three Civil Revisions are at the instance of defendant tenant in a suit for eviction instituted in the year 1974. 2. The disputed premises is a cinema hall. In the year 1979, hearing of the suit was taken up and the plaintiffs witnesses were examined. P.W. 10 was examined on 4-6-1985. Thereafter a few witnesses of the plaintiff were examined, and the defendant-petitioner was asked to examine his witnesses from 19th September, 1990. The defendant filed a list of witnesses as required under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the time of settlement of the issues and/or with fifteen days from the date of settlement of the issues I am told that those witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the defendant-petitioner. 3. The defendant petitioner moved the Court below for issue of summonses to some new fourteen witnesses, but the court refused to issue summons at that late stage, as against which the petitioner moved this Court in Civil Revision No. 1669 of 1990. By order dated 24-1-1991. This Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the Court below refusing to issue fresh summons to the new set of witnesses at that late stage beyond the one contemplated under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court however, observed while disposing of the said Civil Revision that if the witnesses of the defendant-petitioner are available in Court while the suit is being taken up day to day, the court below might pass appropriate order. 4. When the matter went back, another petition was filed by the defendant petitioner in the court below for issue of summons to his witnesses by the Court and the court refused to abide by the prayer, but observed that it will have no objection if the witnesses mentioned in the list, whose examination was rejected earlier are produced and examined before the court on day to day basis. Civil Revision No. 361 of 1991 is directed by the defendant-petitioner against this order. 5. After sometime, the petitioner again filed on application that he may be given Dasti summons from the court for the list of witnesses he has furnish ed. Civil Revision No. 361 of 1991 is directed by the defendant-petitioner against this order. 5. After sometime, the petitioner again filed on application that he may be given Dasti summons from the court for the list of witnesses he has furnish ed. The Court below rejected the said prayer by the order dated 16-2-1991 and directed the defendant-petitioner to bring witnesses from that very day in view of the direction of the court below on 7-1-1991. The defendant did not produce any witness but filed a medical certificate to adjourn the case The last few lines of the order dated 16-2-1991 passed by the Court below make interesting reading: So, on each and every date he files a new petition. In the context of this case it can safely be observed that the defendant wants to check the course of administration of justice at his whim. If this trend is allowed liberally and leisurely then I feel that there would be no end at least to civil litigation. Civil Revision No. 362 of 1991 is directed against the aforesaid order. 6 Civil Revision No. 363 of 1991 is directed against the order dated 18-2-1991 passed by the Court below, by which it refused to grant any time, and the defendant petitioner having failed to produce the witnesses, the case has been closed, and in so doing it has acted on the direction of this Court issued earlier. 7. Mr. Ramchandra Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord opposite party submitted that the defendent-tenants only intention is to delay the proceeding of the suit in the Court below, as he has with him several orders of Civil Revision petitions passed by this Court to show how the matter has been delayed from time to time. He further argued that issuing of summons is no more res judicata because the High Court has already applied its mind and has rendered its decisions on the said point, and this Court, will, therefore be reviewing the said orders, if the present Civil Revision petitions are allowed. 8. Mr. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner alone is not responsible for the delay in the disposal of the eviction suit and the landlord plaintiff is also responsible in allowing seventeen years to roll by for the eviction of the tenant defendant. 8. Mr. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner alone is not responsible for the delay in the disposal of the eviction suit and the landlord plaintiff is also responsible in allowing seventeen years to roll by for the eviction of the tenant defendant. He strenuously submitted that it is not possible for the defendant-tenant to produce the witnesses unless the witnesses receive some call from the court and, therefore, justice demands issuance of Dasti summons to the witnesses at the cost of the petitioner. 9. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the three orders impugned in the three civil Revision petitions, I am convinced that the court below has not exceeded in its jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders nor it has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in so doing. It has carried out the desire of the High Court, and in my opinion, rightly. A case for interference, therefore, is not at all made out. 10. Mr. Dwivedi, however, submitted that lest the equity be murdered the tenant petitioner be given an opportunity to examine such of the witnesses who may be readily available to him when the case goes back to the court below, and in that sense, the order of the court below closing the case of the tenant petitioner be allowed to remain open. Mr. Ramchandra Jha has serious objection to this prayer of Mr. Dwivedi because according to him, earlier also crocodile tears were shed in this Court which led the court below to allow witnesses, if present, to be examined, I see no injustice being done to any of the parties if on the day the case on or its return journey is taken up by the court below, the defendant petitioner is able to produce some defence witnesses they be allowed to be examined and the Court below is directed to continue examination of the defence witnesses day to day as directed earlier by this Court. The defendant, however, will not renew his prayer for summons or Dasti summons to the witnesses or any adjournment for presentation of his witnesses. He must be prepared to do so right from now. 11. The three Civil Revisions are hereby dismissed with the directions/observations made above. There will be no order as to costs.