Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1182 (ALL)

Seema Goel v. Rahul Gupta

2016-04-01

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard Shri. Murli Dhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is with the prayer to set aside the judgment and orders dated 17.11.2015 and 20.1.2016 passed by the court below in rejecting application 99-C filed by the defendants-petitioners. It appears that the suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent was filed by the plaintiff-respondents against Smt. Malti Agarwal, mother of the petitioners. The defendant Smt. Malti Agarwal died on 25.3.2014 during the pendency of the suit and the petitioners were substituted being her daughters. Despite having been substituted, they did not file any additional written statement rather sought time from the Court below. The records indicates that five dates was fixed for filing additional written statement and last opportunity was granted to the petitioners on 17.9.2015 for the purpose. They did not file a written statement and, therefore, 28.10.2014 was fixed evidence. The evidence of plaintiff was concluded on 15.11.2015 however the petitioners/defendants did not file their evidence on the next date fixed rather moved application for grant of time to file additional written statement. 3. This application was rejected vide order dated 6.5.2015 which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 39820 of 2015. The said Writ Petition was dismissed as misconceived petition by detailed order dated 12.8.2015. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application 99-C on 3.11.2015 with the prayer to recall the order of closing evidence of the defendant. The application 99-C dated 3.11.2015 is on record as annexure 4' to this petition and finds place at page 25 of the paper book. The affidavit accompanying the said application is not brought on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the orders impugned submits that a serious dispute regarding ownership/title to the suit property was raised by the defendant namely Smt. Malti Agarwal in her categorical assertion in paragraph 10 of the written statement filed by her that she was inducted in the suit property by way of rent note dated 15.10.1984 and that she was paying rent to Public Charitable Trust namely Shri. Mahabeer Ji Maharaj Virajman Jain Shwetambar Mandir, Purani Pasrath, Jhansi. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that by means of the application 99-C, the applicants-petitioners want to bring on record the rent note dated 15.8.1984 which could not be filed by their mother i.e. defendant namely Smt. Malti Agarwal. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not substantiated from the record. A perusal of the application 99-C indicates that only prayer made is to recall the order of closer of evidence. After 6.5.2015 again on 25.5.2015, time was granted to the defendants-petitioners to file their evidence by 30.5.2015 but this opportunity was not availed and, therefore, his evidence was closed on 30.5.2015 and not on 6.5.2015. Further the revisional Court has recorded that the defendants/petitioners were not co-operating with the conclusion of trial of the SCC Court and were adopting dilatory tactics on one or other pretext. The argument of plaintiff was completed on 16.7.2015, despite opportunity granted to the defendants they did not extended their arguments thereafter. 6. Further from a perusal of order dated 12.8.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 39820 of 2015, it is apparent that the petitioners though had approach this Court earlier but at no point of time they had stated either before this Court or before the trial Court that they want to file the rent note dated 15.10.1984 in evidence. 7. In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find any justification to interfere in the order passed by the Courts below. 8. Lastly Ms. Rama Goyal Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit is pending since 2011 and the petitioners are adopting dilatory tactics and have not been co-operative in disposal of the suit. The next date fixed in the matter is 8.4.2016. It is, therefore, provided that the Court below shall make an endeavour to decide the suit namely S.C.C. Suit within a period of one month from today after giving last opportunity to the defendants-petitioners to extend their arguments. In case the defendants-petitioners still not co-operate and seek adjournment, the suit shall be decided ex parte. 9. With the above observations, the Writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.