P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) ALL these Civil Revisions have been filed by the plaintiff. Since the orders impugned are inter-linked, all the Civil revisions are taken up together and being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner is absent. The Counsel for opposite party is present. Since revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised suo motu, even though the counsel for the petitioner is absent, 1 think it proper to dispose of the Civil Revision on merit, as after going through the orders. I find that the orders cannot be sustained. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction on the allegation that she is a tenant under the opposite party and she apprehends that she may be forcibly evicted from the disputed house without taking recourse to procedure established by law. The defendant in written statement has denied the allegation in the plaint and has filed a counterclaim seeking for recovery of possession of the disputed house on the ground that the plaintiff is a trespasser. ( 4 ) IT appears that hearing of the suit had commenced and P. W. 1 had been examined. At that stage on the basis of the application filed by Counsel for the defendant, the Trial court passed an order on 11. 2. 1999 directing the plaintiff to pay the house rent for the period from January, 1993, till February, 1999 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month by 12. 2. 1999. Subsequently, on 12. 2. 1999, the plaintiff filed an application for adjournment. The trial Court while granting adjournment till 16. 2. 1999 directed that the entire outstanding house rent as per order dated 11. 2. 1999 should be paid along with cost of Rs. 100/- to the defendant and the case was posted to 16. 2. 1999 for peremptory hearing On 16. 2. 1999, an application was filed by the plaintiff for adjournment and also for reducing the cost. The Trial Court while rejecting such application took up hearing of the suit at a subsequent stage and closed the case of the plaintiff and examined the defendant as D. W. 1 in part. Civil Revision No. 106/99 is directed against this order. Subsequently, on 17. 2. The Trial Court while rejecting such application took up hearing of the suit at a subsequent stage and closed the case of the plaintiff and examined the defendant as D. W. 1 in part. Civil Revision No. 106/99 is directed against this order. Subsequently, on 17. 2. 1999 another petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiff for recording further evidence of P. W 1 had been closed and to defer the hearing of the case. It was also recorded that the Counsel for the plaintiff had declined to cross-examine D. W. 1 stating that the Counsel was not acquainted with the file. The Trial Court accordingly closed the evidence of D. W. 1 and posted the matter to 18. 2. 1999 for further evidence on behalf of the defendant and to consider the petition filed by the plaintiff calling for certain records civil Revision No. 105/99 is directed against the aforesaid order. It further appears from order dated 18. 2. 1999 that another petition was filed by the plaintiff for adjournment of the case and for permission to cross-examine the witness of the defendant already examined. The said application was also rejected and since the defendant did not want to produce any further witness, evidence was closed. ( 5 ) CIVIL Revision No. 70/99 was filed on 22. 2. 1999 impugning all the orders passed between 11. 2. 1999 to 18. 2. 1999 Subsequently, the two other revisions have been filed obviously with a view to overcome the technical difficulty of filing one revision against so many orders of the trial Court. ( 6 ) IN the House Rent Control Act, there was a provision regarding deposit of entire admitted rent and if the tenant refuses to deposit the admitted arrear rent, there was a provision for striking off the defence of the tenant. However, there is no suit can be called upon to deposit the admitted arrear rent. Though the learned counsel for the opposite party has supported the order by stating that such order is in the interest of justice, I cannot accept the legality of such order which is completely without jurisdiction. The order dated 11 2. However, there is no suit can be called upon to deposit the admitted arrear rent. Though the learned counsel for the opposite party has supported the order by stating that such order is in the interest of justice, I cannot accept the legality of such order which is completely without jurisdiction. The order dated 11 2. 1999 which is considered to be without jurisdiction has given rise to subsequent orders and ultimately, the Trial Court has closed the evidence on the side of the plaintiff and has not permitted cross-examination of the witness examined on behalf of the defendant. I do not see any apparent justification for such harsh orders being passed by the trial Court. Moreover, the initial order dated 11. 2. 1999 which has given rise to all subsequent orders, is without jurisdiction. I think, interest of justice would be served by quashing the order dated 11. 2. 1999 as well as the subsequent orders dated 16. 2. 1999, 17. 2. 1999 and 18 2. 1999 which appear to be consequential orders. To avoid any confusion, it is clarified as follows : (I) The plaintiff shall not be required to deposit any amount; (II) The plaintiff shall be permitted to further examine P. W. 1 and other witnesses. Thereafter, D. W. 1 shall be permitted to be cross-examined by the plaintiff and defendant shall be permitted to examine any other witness. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the hearing of the suit is being unnecessarily lingered due to dilatory process adopted by the plaintiff. The suit is of the year 1997. Keeping in view the nature of the relief sought for in the suit as well as in the counter. 1 think, interest of justice would be served by directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 17th December, 1999, under intimation to this Court. ( 8 ) THE Civil Revisions are accordingly allwed. There will be no order as to costs. The order be communicated to the trial Court. Revisions allowed.