Honble SHARMA, J.–Instant revision impugns the order dated Sept. 5, 1997 of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Jaipur City (West) whereby the application of the defendant petitioner (for short the defendant) under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC was dismissed. (2). Admittedly, the plaintiff non-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted suit for eviction against the defendant in respect of shop in dispute in the trial court on July 4, 1984 but the suit is still pending and the evidence of the defendant has not been recorded as yet. The plaintiff closed his evidence on January 2, 1996 and the case thereafter was posted for recording the evidence of the defendant on March 18, 1996. The defendant sought time and the case was adjourned to April 23, 1996. Instead of producing the evidence the defendant moved an application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC, the arguments over the application were heard, the defendant moved another application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC on October 5, 1996. Learned trial court passed an order on October 15, 1996 allowing some documents but disallowed partnership deed, adoption deed and year book of the Gem and jewelry. The defendant preferred revision against the said order but it was dismissed as withdrawn on Jan. 17, 1997. The defendant thereafter moved another application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC for summoning the Income tax return of last five years bearing permanent account No. GII-O Ward-II (4) GIR A 1606 pertaining to Sudeep Kumar Buchra, from the Income tax department. Learned trial Court dismissed the application on Jan., 22, 1997 holding that the application was not bonafide and was filed to delay the proceedings of the suit. Revision against the said order was filed by the defendant but it was dismissed by this court on Feb. 13, 1997, the defendant against moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on Feb. 25, 1997 before the trial court seeking amendment in the written statement to the effect that Sudip Kumar Bhuchra was Income Tax Payee and had shown income of Rs. 26,000/- from the firm M/s. Indo Gem Exports as salary. The income from Dalali and interest in the sum of Rs. 86,000/- per year was also shown. The learned trial court dismissed the said application on March 1, 1997. The defendant assailed the order by filing revision. 26,000/- from the firm M/s. Indo Gem Exports as salary. The income from Dalali and interest in the sum of Rs. 86,000/- per year was also shown. The learned trial court dismissed the said application on March 1, 1997. The defendant assailed the order by filing revision. This court dismissed the revision on March 28, 1997 observing that the de- fendant can adduce evidence by filing relevant documents or summoning the same in accordance with law. The defendant did not examine any witness on April 5, 1997. On May 24, 1997 the defendant moved another application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC requesting the trial court to summon the concern I.T.O. of Ward II(4) with the Income-tax assessment of Sudip Kumar Buchra for the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 with the Balance sheet, Profit and Loss account, Income tax return and tax paid record. The trial Court vide its order dated Sept. 5, 1997 dismissed the application. It is against this order that the present action for filing the revision has been resorted to by the defendant. (3). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully scanned the record. (4). The plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide necessity and default in making payment of rent. According to plaint, the shop in dispute is required for the purposes of business of Sudip Buchra. On July 18, 1995 Sudip Buchra was examined as PW 2 in the trial court. I have carefully gone through the statement of Sudip Kumar Buchra but unable to find any question or suggestion in his cross examination in respect of payment of Income tax by him or collection of Dalali and interest. The defendant could have cross examined Sudip Buchra in respect of Income-tax assessment for the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 as well as Balance sheet and Profit and loss account and tax paid record but he did not choose to do so. Under these circumstances the request for summoning the concern I.T.O. of Ward II(4) with the relevant document, by the defendant does not appear to be bonafide. Therefore I do not consider it necessary to appreciate the authorities cited at the bar. Under these circumstances the request for summoning the concern I.T.O. of Ward II(4) with the relevant document, by the defendant does not appear to be bonafide. Therefore I do not consider it necessary to appreciate the authorities cited at the bar. Suffice it to say that the act of defendant in filing one application after another can be said to be a deliberate act of prolonging the trial of the civil suit which is pending in the trial court for the last thirteen years. (5). I see no jurisdictional error in the impugned order and if it is allowed to stand it would not occasion failure of justice. (6). Consequently, I dismiss the revision petition with costs, which I quantify Rs. 2,000/-. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on december 16, 1997. Looking to the fact that the suit is pending for more than thirteen years, I direct the trial court to expedite the trial of the suit and dispose it preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order.