Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 245 (MP)

Shanti Devi Bhadoriya v. Gangeshwari Devi

2019-03-18

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 23.1.2019 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior by which the application filed by the petitioner was rejected and impliedly right of the petitioner to lead the defence evidence was also closed as the case was directly fixed for final arguments. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 has filed an application under section 23 of MP Accommodation Control Act for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirements. On 26.7.2018, an application under section 151 of CPC was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the case was fixed for reply of the said application. On 20.9.2019, the counsel for the respondent No. 1 filed his reply and then the case was adjourned for reply as well as arguments (although the reply was already filed on 20.9.2018 which is reflected in the order sheet also). On 23.1.2019, it was observed by the Rent Controlling Authority that the petitioner's counsel has not shown any interest in arguing the application and accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 of CPC was rejected and fixed the case for final arguments. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that from 20.9.2018, the case was always fixed for filing of reply and arguments. On 23.1.2019 if the RCA was of the view that the petitioner is showing no interest in final disposal of eviction proceedings and therefore, the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 of CPC is liable to be rejected, then the RCA should have fixed the case for recording the petitioner's evidence and should not have fixed for final arguments. 4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 1 that since the petitioner is a tenant, therefore, every effort is being made to delay the proceedings. However, he fairly conceded that on 23.1.2019, the case was not fixed for recording the defence evidence and it was only fixed for reply and arguments. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The respondent No. 1 has filed the copy of entire order sheets of the trial Court along with IA No. 1289 of 2019. However, he fairly conceded that on 23.1.2019, the case was not fixed for recording the defence evidence and it was only fixed for reply and arguments. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The respondent No. 1 has filed the copy of entire order sheets of the trial Court along with IA No. 1289 of 2019. From the order sheets, it appears that on 14.6.2018, the respondent No. 1 closed her right and the case was fixed for the first time on 12.7.2018 for recording the defence evidence. On 12.7.2018, the case was adjourned for 26.7.2018 on the request of the counsel for the petitioner. On 26.7.2018, the lawyers were on strike, however, an application under section 151 of CPC was filed by the petitioner (Although it is wrongly mentioned in the order sheet that the said application was filed by the counsel for the respondent No. 1.) The case was adjourned for 10.8.2018. On 10.8.2018, a cryptic order was passed and it was merely mentioned that the counsel for the parties have prayed for adjournment and accordingly, the case was fixed for 29.8.2018. However, it is not mentioned that for what purpose the adjournment was granted. On 29.8.2018, the case was fixed for recording the defence evidence on 20.9.2018. On 20.9.2018, the counsel for the respondent No. 1 filed his reply and the parties prayed for adjournment for arguments on the said application. On 10.10.2018, 25.1.2018, 1.1.2018 and 14.12.2018, the case was adjourned for reply and arguments, although the counsel for the respondent No. 1 had already filed his reply on 20.9.2018. On 3.1.2019, the Presiding Officer was on leave and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 23.1.2019 without fixing the purpose as the said order was written by the Reader of the RCA. On 23.1.2019, as the counsel for the petitioner was not present, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 of CPC was rejected and it was held that in the light of direction given by High Court by order dated 19.5.2017 in Writ Petition No. 2916 of 2017, the case has to be decided within time-frame, therefore, it appears that petitioner is unnecessarily trying to delay the proceedings. 7. 7. During the arguments, it was fairly conceded by the counsel for the respondent no.1 that by order dated 19.5.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 2916 of 2017, this Court had directed the RCA to complete the trial within a period of three months but the respondent No. 1 herself took about a year to close her right. However, it was fairly conceded by the counsel for the respondent No. 1 that on 23.1.2019, the case was not fixed for recording the evidence of petitioner and thus, it is fairly conceded by the counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the RCA could not have closed the right of the petitioner to lead the evidence by fixing the same for final arguments. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 23.1.2019 so far as it relates to fixing the case for final arguments, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 8. At this stage, an undertaking is given by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall keep all her witnesses present before the RCA on the next date. It is submitted that the case is fixed for 14th April, 2019 before the RCA, Gwalior. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner would get only one opportunity to examine all her witnesses on the next date before the RCA i.e. 14th April, 2019. Therefore, it is directed that without any further notice, the petitioner shall keep all her witnesses present before the RCA on the said date and the RCA is directed to examine the witnesses of the petitioner. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to keep all her witnesses present before the RCA on 14th April, 2019, no further opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to lead the defence evidence on any ground. The RCA is also directed not to grant adjournment to any of the parties on any of the grounds. 10. As this Court by order dated 19.5.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 2916 of 2017 has already directed the RCA to conclude the trial as early as possible within a period of three months and approximately two years have expired, but still the application under section 23 of MP Accommodation Control Act is still pending, therefore, the RCA, Gwalior is directed to conclude the case within three months from today. 11. 11. With the aforesaid direction this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.