Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 806 (PNJ)

Subhash Bijlani v. Rajinder Kaur Grewal

2004-08-02

M.M.KUMAR

body2004
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This case presents manifestation of peculiar syndrome adopted by the tenant with the objection (object?) of delaying the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The landlord-respondent had filed an application for ejectment against the tenant-petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. After framing of issues, recasting of the same, the landlord concluded his evidence and the case was posted for adducing evidence by the tenant-petitioner (respondent No. 2). The first date fixed for adducing the evidence by the tenant-petitioner (respondent No. 2) was fixed somewhere in 2000 and the last opportunity was granted on 6.12.2001. Thereafter, the case has been lingering on at the request made by the tenant-petitioner on one pretext or the other. Eventuality, the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 29.10.2003 closed the evidence of the tenant-petitioner, which reads as under:- "A perusal of the file shows that on 6.12.2001 last opportunity was given to respondent No. 2 to conclude the evidence. Thereafter one RW was examined, whereby the case was further adjourned for completion of cross-examination of the said witness. On 13.2.2002, no evidence of the respondent No. 2 was present and another opportunity was afforded to respondent No. 2 to produce the evidence and similarly on 25.2.2002 the case was adjourned to 26.2.2002 for the purpose of evidence at his own responsibility and to conclude the same on 2.3.2002. Thereafter on 2.3.2002 it was further directed that it was the last opportunity as no evidence of respondent No. 2 was present. He was further directed to conclude his evidence on the next date on 14.3.2002. On the said date, further opportunity was granted to respondent No. 2 on payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs and it was specifically directed that in case respondent does not conclude his evidence on the next date, the same shall be deemed to be closed by order. On the next date on 28.3.2002 further opportunity was granted subject to payment of Rs. 1,500/- as costs and thereafter on 8.5.2002 an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved and the same was allowed on the same date. Thereafter on 12.4.2002 further opportunity with a direction that no opportunity would be granted to the respondent No. 2 and he was directed to conclude the evidence on 6.5.2002. 1,500/- as costs and thereafter on 8.5.2002 an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved and the same was allowed on the same date. Thereafter on 12.4.2002 further opportunity with a direction that no opportunity would be granted to the respondent No. 2 and he was directed to conclude the evidence on 6.5.2002. No RW was present, despite that another opportunity was granted with direction that he will produce the evidence at his own responsibility and will conclude his evidence. Thereafter another application was moved which remained pending and on 29.5.2003 it was specifically directed that in case respondent No. 2 did not come present and failed to conclude his evidence, then his evidence shall deem to be closed by order. On 11.8.2003 learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has specifically undertaken that respondent No. 2 is seriously ill and in case he does not conclude the evidence on the next date of hearing then the same shall deem to be closed by order. Thereafter another application was filed on the next date on the ground that respondent No. 2 could not appear on account of illness and another opportunity was granted subject to payment of Rs. 800/- as costs. It was specifically directed that no further adjournment would be given. On the next date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was again adjourned for today. Despite all these opportunities having been given to respondent No. 2, he failed to conclude the evidence. Today respondent No. 2 has not come to the witness box to depose his case. Despite so many opportunities having been given to him. I find no force in the contention of Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 that application should be heard (since heard) and decided before the conclusion of evidence. I do not find any ground to grant further adjournment to respondent No. 2 for the purpose of his evidence and the same stands closed by order. Reply to application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. is already on the record. Now to come up on 28.11.2003 for filing reply to the application under Section 113 C.P.C. r/w 151 C.P.C. and consideration on the application." 2. A perusal of the aforementioned order shows that after last opportunity on 6.12.2001, opportunity with costs and on the enhanced costs, were granted. Now to come up on 28.11.2003 for filing reply to the application under Section 113 C.P.C. r/w 151 C.P.C. and consideration on the application." 2. A perusal of the aforementioned order shows that after last opportunity on 6.12.2001, opportunity with costs and on the enhanced costs, were granted. Thereafter, even on 11.8.2003, an undertaking was given by the counsel for the tenant-petitioner to the effect that if the evidence is not concluded by the next date of hearing, the same may be closed by order. Again an application was filed on the pretext that the tenant-petitioner could not appear on ground of illness and adjournment was granted on payment of Rs. 800/- as costs with a rider that no further adjournment would be given. Despite, the aforementioned opportunity having been given, the tenant-petitioner has not been able to conclude his evidence compelling the Rent Controller to close his evidence by order. 3. Mr. D.S. Keer, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that in the interest of justice, one opportunity be given to the tenant-petitioner because various opportunities granted to him are either on account his illness or on account of the fact that he has gone abroad, or he was busy in his professional activities. 4. Mr. Atul V. Sood, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent has argued that a perusal of the impugned order makes it evident that the intention of the tenant-petitioner is to delay the proceedings to the extent possible. Therefore, the order of the learned Rent Controller is not open to any interference. 5. After perusing the impugned order and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this case is an illustration of wanton misuse of process of the Court at the instance of the tenant-petitioner. The Rent Controller has granted large number of opportunities to the tenant-petitioner. A perusal of the order shows that after last opportunity was granted on 6.12.2001, opportunities with costs, enhanced costs and with an undertaking have also been granted. However, the tenant-petitioner has made every effort to test patience of the Rent Controller and eventually the impugned order was passed on 29.10.2003. The tenant-petitioner thereafter challenged the order before this Court and succeeded in persuading this Court to restrain the Rent Controller from passing any final order. However, the tenant-petitioner has made every effort to test patience of the Rent Controller and eventually the impugned order was passed on 29.10.2003. The tenant-petitioner thereafter challenged the order before this Court and succeeded in persuading this Court to restrain the Rent Controller from passing any final order. This type of misuse of process of the Court by the litigant is liable to be condemned. Therefore, do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller, The instant petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.