Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Ashok Patel as neither the petitioner himself who presented this transfer application in this Court on 19.5.2012 nor any counsel on his behalf has appeared, though name of Mr. N.S. Rathore appears in the cause list. 2. The present transfer application paints a picture of gross abuse of process of law by the defendant-tenant, Jugal Kishore Tapadia, who was filed the present transfer petition, prima facie it appears just to browbeat the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in the pending appeal No. 58/2010 - Jugal Kishore vs. Smt. Pushpa Johar, which he filed against the eviction decree passed against him in respect of suit premises, situated at Plot No. 64, Section A, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur, which he is using for commercial purposes which is high value property. 3. The defendant-tenant claimed that the plaintiff Smt. Pushpa Johar's husband Sh. Ranjeet Singh Johar had executed a Will in his favour in respect of suit premises, which defence was not believed by the learned Rent Tribunal and had passed the eviction decree on 12.8.2010 against which the defendant tenant preferred the present appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal on 14.10.2010 and during the course of which, he has filed the present transfer application before this Court under Section 24 C.P.C. seeking transfer of proceedings from said Appellate Tribunal to any other competent Court/Tribunal. 4. The present transfer application was filed by the petitioner Jugal Kishore Tapadia himself before this Court on 19.5.2012 and the office pointed out following defects in the same, which are narrated below: "1. Synopsis not filed. 2. Sub. Matter is incomplete. 3. Affidavit age not shown (in support of transfer petition and affidavits) 4. Foot note for stay petition not shown 5. Copy of order: C/F not annexed. 5. The petitioner himself appeared before the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court on 19.9.2012 after four month of filing the same and removed the defects No. 2, 3 and 5. He was further granted two weeks' time to cure other defects as well. Office report shows that the defects were removed on 6.11.2012 and the matter was ordered to be listed before this Court on 9.11.2012. On 8.11.2011, counsel Mr. N.S. Rathore filed Vakalatnama signed by the petitioner. On 9.11.2012 counsel Mr. N.S. Rathore appeared before the Court and on 9.11.2012 Mr. Office report shows that the defects were removed on 6.11.2012 and the matter was ordered to be listed before this Court on 9.11.2012. On 8.11.2011, counsel Mr. N.S. Rathore filed Vakalatnama signed by the petitioner. On 9.11.2012 counsel Mr. N.S. Rathore appeared before the Court and on 9.11.2012 Mr. J.R. Patel appeared on behalf of respondent-landlord Smt. Pushpa Johar. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.S. Rathore was directed to give copy of the petition to Mr. J.R. Patel and the Registry was directed to show the name of Mr. J.R. Patel in the cause list and the matter was directed to be listed on 21.11.2012 with further direction that the case shall not be adjourned in future. 6. Today, when the matter has come up before this Court, the Counsel Mr. N.S. Rathore is not present and despite the message sent for him and waited for about 1/2 hour, while hearing the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ashok Patel, Mr. N.S. Rathore did not appear in the Court. He appeared after the order was dictated and informed that the petitioner has taken back the brief from him. 7. On going through the averments made in the transfer application and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, the picture which emerges is more painful and shows how a litigant can abuse the process of law with impunity simply by filing transfer petition before the higher Court and the learned counsel for the respondent informed that he is not arguing the appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, only one of which exists at Jodhpur and there is no question of transferring the present appeal to any other Appellate Rent Tribunal in Jodhpur. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ashok Patel has also produced before the Court the order dtd. 17.7.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Appellate Rent Tribunal in which the Presiding Officer (Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma) expressed the anguish of the Appellate Rent Tribunal and noted that despite so many dates and opportunities given to the defendant-appellant for arguing the appeal on various dates, he avoided such arguments on the appeal. To quote the order dtd. 17.7.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Appellate Rent Tribunal in which the Presiding Officer (Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma) expressed the anguish of the Appellate Rent Tribunal and noted that despite so many dates and opportunities given to the defendant-appellant for arguing the appeal on various dates, he avoided such arguments on the appeal. To quote the order dtd. 17.7.2012 is considered appropriate, which reads as under: ^^vihykFkhZ-vizkFkhZ fdjk;snkj tqxy fd'kksj Lo;a mifLFkrA izR;fFkZ;k ds vf/koDrk Jh v'kksd iVsy dh vksj ls Jh lfpu HkkVh] vf/koDrk mifLFkrA vihykFkhZ us vkt ,d vkosnu is'k dj fuosnu fd;k fd vihykFkhZ us bl izdj.k esa U;k;ky; }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ls O;fFkr gksdj ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk fnukad 19-5-2012 dks izLrqr dj nh gS vkSj og LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk vHkh rd lquokbZ esa ugha vkbZ gSA vkosnu esa ;g Hkh ntZ fd;k x;k fd U;k;ky; }kjk dh xbZ tk jgh vokaNuh; dk;Zokgh ls O;fFkr gksdj vihykFkhZ us LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gS] blfy, vc bl vihy esa dksbZ izHkkoh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k x;k fd vihy dk;Zokgh dks LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk ds fu.kZ; rd LFkfxr Qjek;k tkosa vkSj ,d ekg dk ekSdk fn;k tkosaA mDr vkosnu dk tokc izR;FkhZ izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k x;k fd fof/k ds Li"V fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj i{kdkj }kjk U;kf;d izfØ;k dk nq:i;ksx djus dh uh;r o cnuh;rh ls ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds fo:) vkjksi yxkdj ;k izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh dks bYrck djokus dh cnuh;rh ls vFkok LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk izLrqr dj nsus ls izdj.k dh xq.kkoxq.k ij lquokbZ LFkfxr ugha dh tk ldrh gSA mUgksaus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd vihykFkhZ dk ;g dFku xyr o >wBk gS fd mlds }kjk izLrqr rFkkdfFkr LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk ij ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us lquokbZ ugha dh gSA ;fn vihykFkhZ ys'kek= Hkh lgh gksrk rks og fiNys rhu ekg esa viuh rFkkdfFkr LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk dh vo'; lquokbZ djokrkA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh lkekU; izfØ;k ds vuqlkj ;fn dksbZ LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk fof/kor izLrqr dh tkrh gS rks mldh lquokbZ lkekU;r% ,d lIrkg ds vUnj vUnj vo'; gks tkrh gS] ijUrq ;fn dksbZ i{kdkj tku cw>dj fMQsDV j[k nsos rks Hkh rhu ekg esa mlh fMQsDV ;kfpdk ds :i esa lquokbZ gks tkrh gS] blfy, LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk is'k djus dk vihykFkhZ dk dFku ekuus ;ksX; ugha gSA mUgksaus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd fodYi esa ;fn FkksM+h nsj ds fy, eku Hkh fy;k tkosa fd vihykFkhZ dh LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk fopkjk/khu gS] gkykafd ;g fcYdqy xyr gS] rks Hkh ek= LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk ds fopkjk/khu gks tkus ls bl U;k;ky; ds le{k fopkjk/khu izdj.k drbZ LFkfxr ugha gks tkrkA mUgksaus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd vihykFkhZ dh bl xyr] xSj dkuwuh o cnuh;rhiw.kZ dk;Zokgh ls izR;FkhZ izkFkhZ ds lkFk ?kksj vU;k; gks jgk gS] vr% vihykFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj bl izdj.k dk vkt gh xq.kkoxq.k ij fu.kZ; fd;k tkosaA ;fn ,slk ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks mu i{kdkjku dks izksRlkgu feysxk] tks ;su-dsu izdkjs.k vius izdj.kksa dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fu.kZ; ugha gksus nsuk pkgrs gSaA var esa mUgksaus vihykFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA rdksZ ij fopkj fd;k x;kA ;g vihy izR;FkhZ izkFkhZ }kjk v/khuLFk fdjk;k vf/kdj.k ds le{k fnukad 30-3-2007 dks izLrqr csn[kyh ;kfpdk esa v/khuLFk fdjk;k vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 12-8-2010 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlesa fnukad 20-3-2012] 9-5-2012] 19-5-2012] 28-5-2012 o 30-5-2012 dks foLr`r vkns'k ikfjr dj vihykFkhZ dks cgl ds fy, ckj-ckj volj fn;s x;s gSA var esa vihykFkhZ us LFkkukarj.k ;kfpdk is'k dj vihy dks vU; vf/kdj.k esa LFkkukarj.k djokus dh bPNk tkfgj dj fQj LFkxu ekaxk gS] ml ckr dks Hkh yxHkx nks ekg dk le; gks pqdk gS] ysfdu vHkh rd vihykFkhZ us LFkkukarj.k vkns'k ykdj is'k fd;k gS vkSj u gh LFkxu vkns'k ysdj is'k fd;k gSA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk le; le; ij leLr U;k;ky;ksa dks ifji= tkjh dj funsZf'kr dj j[kk gS fd tc rd LFkxu vkns'k u gks rks izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh dks LFkfxr ugha fd;k tkosaA gLrxr ekeyk vpy lEifr ds dCts ls lacaf/kr gSA gky gh esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us nhokuh vihy la[;k 4912-4913@2011 ^^jkejkes'ojh nsoh o vU; cuke fueZyk nsoh o vU;** fu.kZ; fnukad 4-7-2011 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd izdj.k esa tgka ,d i{kdkj lEifr dk mi;ksx miHkksx dj jgk gks vkSj izdj.k esa foyEc dj jgk gks] ogka ij vxj og izdj.k dks foyfEcr dj mldk ykHk izkIr dj jgk gS rks LFkxu ds ekeys esa lkeus okys i{kdkj dks okLro esa tks {kfr gks jgh gS] ftlesa vf/koDrk dh Qhl] VkbZi dk [kpkZ] vkus tkus dk [kpkZ] mldh vkenuh dk [kpkZ vkSj lEifr ds mi;ksx ls gksus okyk [kpkZ] lc dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, okLrfod gtkZ yxkuk tkuk pkfg;s vkSj vokafNr LFkxu ugha fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA bl U;k; n`"VkaUr esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd U;k;ky; }kjk realoistic o pragmatic vizksp j[krs gq, okLrfod mense profits Hkh fnykuk tkuk pkfg;sA dksLV ds laca/k esa ;g Hkh /;ku esa j[kuk pkfg;s fd LFkxu pkgus okys O;fDr ds dkj.k lkeus okys i{kdkj dks fdrus yEcs le; rd izdj.k ks yMuk iMk gSA bl U;k; n`"VkUr ls lacaf/kr izdj.k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fofo/k vkns'k ds fo:) muds ;gka izLrqr vihy nks yk[k :i;s dh dksLV ij vLohdkj djrs gq, fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks ewy izdj.k dks 'kh?kzfr'kh?kz ijUrq rhu ekg ls vf/kd ugha] fuLrfjr djus ds Hkh funsZ'k fn;s FksA gLrxr izdj.k esa vihy vihykFkhZ us is'k dh gS] tks o"kZ 2010 ls yafcr gSA jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;U=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 esa 180 fnu esa vihy ds fuLrkj.k dk izko/kku fd;k gqvk gSA izR;FkhZ izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ckj ckj ;g dgk tk jgk gS fd og o`)] vikfgt efgyk gS] ofj"B ukxfjd gS vkSj ofj"B ukxfjdksa ds izdj.kksa dks ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us izkFkfedrk ls fu.khZr djus ds funsZ'k ns j[ks gS] ftls ekuus ds fy, ;g vf/kdj.k Hkh ck/; gSA izR;FkhZ-izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g Hkh vkifRr yh xbZ gS fd vihykFkhZ izdj.k dks foyfEcr dj jgk gS vkSj lEifr dk dCtk vius ikl j[kdj mlds Qy ls ykHkkfUor gks jgk gSA bl izdj.k esa tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS] mls vihykFkhZ vkosnu is'k dj vokaNuh; dk;Zokgh crk jgk gS] U;k;ky; dk ;g drZO; gS fd og nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj mfpr vkns'k ikfjr djsa] vr% vihykFkhZ dks rkdhn fd;k tkrk gS fd og U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh dks vokaNuh; dk;Zokgh ls lacksf/kr ugha djs] vU;Fkk Hkfo"; esa mlds bu 'kCnksa ds izfr mfpr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tk;sxhA vihykFkhZ us LFkkukUrj.k ;kfpdk fnukad 19-5-2012 dks is'k djuk crk;k gS] vHkh rd u rks mlds ucaj crk;s gS] u dksbZ LFkxu vkns'k is'k fd;k gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vfu'pr dky rd bl U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh dks jksdk tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% vkbZUnk is'k ij vihykFkhZ ;k rks LFkxu vkns'k is'k djs] vU;Fkk cgl ds fy, rS;kj gksdj vk;sA vihykFkhZ us bl vihy esa vf/koDrk fu;qDr djus ds fy, Hkh dbZ ekSds fy;s gSA vxyh rkjh[k ij pkgs rks vf/koDrk fu;qDr djds vk;s ;k Lo;a cgl ds fy;s rS;kj gksdj vk;sA vkbZUnk is'kh ij cgl ds fy, dksbZ ekSdk ugha fn;k tk;sxkA i=koyh okLrs cgl vihy fnukad 30-7-2012 dks is'k gksaA** 8. The petitioner Jugal Kishore Tapadia also seems to be in the habit of changing counsels for drop of the hat, as it were, and originally engaged counsel for arguing the appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal Mr. J.K. Chanda, a fairly Sr. Counsel appearing in the trial Court even refused to argue his appeal, on 20.3.2012 and the Appellate Rent Tribunal granted further opportunity to argue the application at the cost of Rs. 1,000/-. On 9.5.2012, the defendant-appellant was not present before the Court and one Mr. Akshay Kumar Dave Advocate filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. before the Appellate Rent Tribunal and despite directions of the Court to argue the said application, the said advocate Mr. Akshay Kumar Dave did not argue the said application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and sought more time to argue the appeal, which was also granted by the Tribunal of course subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- and the matter was adjourned on 19.5.2012. On 19.5.2012, the defendant himself filed an application before the Appellate Rent Tribunal that since he has filed transfer application before the High Court on 19.5.2012 itself, therefore, hearing of the appeal may be postponed. Despite objections of the respondent counsel, the learned Tribunal granted time to the defendant upto 28.5.2012. On 28.5.2012, the matter was adjourned to 30.5.2012. On 30.5.2012, the sons of the defendant filed an application before the Appellate Rent Tribunal levelling certain allegations against the Presiding Officer and thus matter was further adjourned to 11.7.2012 and 17.7.2012 after summer break of June, 2012. Thereafter despite of number of opportunities, instead of arguing the appeal either himself or through counsel, the said litigant appears to have taken advantage of mere filing the present transfer petition, which was kept in defect side for good period of about 6 months when on 9.11.2012, Mr. N.S. Rathore, Advocate appeared before the Court and was asked to supply copy to opposite counsel Mr. J.R. Patel and the appeal has still not been argued by the appellant though no stay by this Court on the proceedings before the Appellate Rent Tribunal was ever granted. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. N.S. Rathore, Advocate appeared before the Court and was asked to supply copy to opposite counsel Mr. J.R. Patel and the appeal has still not been argued by the appellant though no stay by this Court on the proceedings before the Appellate Rent Tribunal was ever granted. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ashok Patel submitted that the defence/claim of defendant before the Rent Tribunal was that a Will was executed by the husband of plaintiff landlord Smt. Pushpa Johar in his favour which was found a to be forged Will and upon complaint, a challan has been filed for criminal trial, being the case No. 1946/2009 - State vs. Jugal Kishore Tapadia before the competent Criminal Court against the present appellant, which is still pending trial. 10. From the averments made in the transfer petition also, it appears that mere imposition of cost by the Appellate Rent Tribunal for seeking unnecessary adjournments gave an impression to the present defendant-petitioner that he cannot expect any justice from the Presiding Officer. Therefore, wild allegations about the relative of other side having "managed" the Presiding Officer were also levelled against the learned Presiding Officer of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, without any foundation or basis. The appeal filed against the eviction decree dtd. 12.8.2010, which was filed in the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 14.10.2010 is pending for last more than 2 years and the defendant has avoided arguments on the said appeal despite imposition of costs on two occasions and after several opportunities granted earlier without such imposition of costs and such dates are given in the quoted order dtd. 17.7.2012 above. Therefore, while on the one hand, the Appellate Rent Tribunal in order to expedite the disposal of the cases insisted for arguments, the defendant-tenant simply avoided it for the reasons best known to him. The usual plight of the defendant -tenant of not handing over the vacant possession despite eviction decree under the garb of mere pendency of appeal, seems to be the reason for which the defendant avoided hearing of said appeal in the aforesaid manner and as narrated by the Presiding Officer in the quoted order dtd. The usual plight of the defendant -tenant of not handing over the vacant possession despite eviction decree under the garb of mere pendency of appeal, seems to be the reason for which the defendant avoided hearing of said appeal in the aforesaid manner and as narrated by the Presiding Officer in the quoted order dtd. 17.7.2012 and "the last straw on the back of the camel" as it were, he filed the present transfer petition before this Court and further spent six months not arguing the appeal and not even pursuing the present transfer petition to its logical end. 11. Such cantankerous, blame-worthy and frivolous litigants are slur on judicial system and they bring bad reputation to the system. This situation is simply not tolerable and cannot be countenanced by this Court and therefore, by way of exemplary manner, the present litigant deserves to be suitably dealt with. 12. The present transfer petition is simply frivolous, false and deliberate mischief of the petitioner-defendant, in gross abuse of process of law. The nature of defence taken by him along with long period taken in arguing the appeal, the number of adjournments taken by him, false and frivolous grounds for the same, non-appearance in the present transfer petition of the counsel, are all the facts which weigh heavily with this Court while passing the present order, albeit sadly. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the present transfer petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/-, half of which will be paid by the defendant-petition to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of 3 days from today and the remaining half will be deposited with the Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur and the parties/their counsels are directed to appear before the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 14.12.2012 as the learned counsel for the respondent informs that the next date is also fixed for arguments on appeal finally on 14.12.2012 and the learned Presiding Officer of the Appellate Rent Tribunal is requested to hear the appeal and dispose of the same finally on the given date. If the petitioner-defendant fails to appear and he or his counsel fails to argue the appeal or seeks adjournment or defendant fails to produce the proof of payment of the cost of Rs. If the petitioner-defendant fails to appear and he or his counsel fails to argue the appeal or seeks adjournment or defendant fails to produce the proof of payment of the cost of Rs. 25000/-, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal may even choose not to decide the appeal on merits, but dismiss the same for want of prosecution and non-compliance or decide the same exparte refusing any adjournment in the matter. A copy of his order be sent to the petitioner and the Appellate Rent Tribunal forthwith.