Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is directed against the order dated 3.1.2003 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana closing the evidence of the landlady-petitioner by order. The reason given is that she has availed about 30 opportunities including the last opportunity as well as opportunity given on payment of costs. The application for producing an hand-writing expert was allowed on 21.12.1998. 2. Mr. K.K. Goel, learned counself for the landlady-petitioner has argued that only one opportunity may be granted to examine the hand-writing expert. He has further submitted that the case was transferred three times from one court to another which has led to the delay in adducing the evidence. 3. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that already large number of opportunities have been given to the landlady-petitioner to conclude her evidence but she has not been able to conclude the same. It is appropriate to mention that despite the permission granted to produce an hand-writing expert vide order dated 21.12.1998, she has failed to examine any expert witness. It has taken more than four years for her to examine an expert witness. There can hardly be any justification for such a whole-some delay in adducing the evidence. Such like cases block the progress of legal proceedings and unnecessarily delay its conclusion. It is high time when the Court should dispel any impression that procuring delay in litigation can be a rewarding proposition. Those who think that by delay they can successfully harass the opposite party, they have to be firmly apprised that procuring delay is suicidal. No Court would come to the rescue of such unscruplous litigants. Therefore, there is no reason to inerfere in the order dated 3.1.2003 and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The argument that the case has been transfered from one Court to another three times would not cut any ice because a large number of opportunities have been granted to the landlady-petitioner. She was the one who was to take appropriate steps for completing her evidence. Therefore, the transfer of the case from one Court to another would be no consequences and I have no hesitation in rejecting this argument. 5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.