Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 516 (HP)

Sharat Sood v. Deepak Patiyal

2025-03-26

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Rent Controller, Shimla in Rent Case registration No. 79 of 2023 (Rent Case/1450/2023 CNR No.:HPSH120014282023) for an expeditious disposal of the proceedings. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the record. 3. A rent petition seeking eviction of the respondents in the case at hand has been filed by the present petitioner. The rent petition in the case at hand was filed on 23.05.2023. Office report in the same was done on 26.05.2023. Thereafter, notices were issued to the respondents for 11.07.2023. On account of incessant rain on 11.07.2023, there was a holiday. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 28.08.2023, on which date, respondents though served, had not put in an appearance, hence were proceeded against ex parte. 4. Subsequent thereto, the matter was listed for recording of ex parte evidence of the petitioner/landlord on 02.11.2023. Statements of a few witnesses of the petitioners were recorded on 02.11.2023. Appropriate steps for service of one witness (Manager UCO Bank) who despite service was not present were taken on the said date. On the next date fixed for recording of the evidence i.e. 02.12.2023, petitioner’s evidence was closed and the case was ordered to be listed on 22.12.2023. On the said date, ex parte arguments were heard and the matter was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 18.01.2024. 5. However, when the matter was taken up on 18.01.2024, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was filed by respondent No.1 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 28.08.2023. Only with the intent of an expeditious disposal of the Rent Petition filed by the present petitioner, no objection was given by the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord and, therefore, the ex parte order dated 28.08.2023 was recalled. Time was granted to respondent No.1 to file reply to the petition. The matter was thereafter listed on 27.02.2024. 6. Time to file reply was granted to respondent No.1 on 27.02.2024, 28.03.2024, 10.04.2024, 29.04.2024, 06.06.2024. On 06.06.2024, time was granted to respondent No.1 to file reply subject to payment of costs. The matter was then posted on 14.06.2024. It is only on 14.06.2024 that reply on behalf of respondent No.1 was filed. The matter was then fixed for filing of rejoinder and for framing of issues on 25.07.2024. On 06.06.2024, time was granted to respondent No.1 to file reply subject to payment of costs. The matter was then posted on 14.06.2024. It is only on 14.06.2024 that reply on behalf of respondent No.1 was filed. The matter was then fixed for filing of rejoinder and for framing of issues on 25.07.2024. Rejoinder was filed on 25.07.2024 and framing of issues was deferred to 21.09.2024. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 04.11.2024, 05.12.2024. On 05.12.2024 issues were framed and the matter was fixed for recording of evidence of the present petitioner/landlord on 10.01.2025. On 10.01.2025, the Presiding Officer was not present, hence the matter was now posted for 11.04.2025. 7. The dilatory tactics on the part of the respondents/tenants before the Rent Controller are writ large from the daily order sheets of the Rent Controller placed on record. On 28.08.2023, on which date, respondents though served, had not put in an appearance, hence were proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter ex-parte proceedings in the absence of the respondents continued. Evidence of the petitioner was recorded ex-parte, final arguments were heard, however when the matter was listed for pronouncement of judgment on 18.01.2024, miraculously respondent No.1 appeared and sought setting aside of order dated 28.08.2023 whereby the respondents had been proceeded against ex-parte. It is evident that after having been proceeded ex-parte, respondent No.1 was keeping a watch on the proceedings before the Rent Controller in the case at hand. The respondent No.1 in order to set at naught the entire proceedings threw the spanner in the works by moving an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside of order dated 28.08.2023, whereby the respondents had been proceeded against ex-parte at a stage when the matter had been fixed for pronouncement of judgement. Participation in the proceedings was sought since 28.08.2023. 8. Since the petitioner/landlord in the case at hand did not want to delay proceedings before the Rent Controller, therefore, when an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 28.08.2023 was filed on 18.01.2024 acting prudently, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/landlord gave no objection qua setting aside the ex parte order dated 28.08.2023. It is in the aforesaid circumstance that the ex parte order was set aside and the respondent No.1/tenant was permitted to participate in the proceedings. 9. It is in the aforesaid circumstance that the ex parte order was set aside and the respondent No.1/tenant was permitted to participate in the proceedings. 9. From 18.01.2024, till the filing of the reply on 14.06.2024 by respondent No.1, the matter before the Rent Controller was listed on 27.02.2024, 28.03.2024, 10.04.2024, 29.04.2024 and 06.06.2024. In accordance with proviso of Order 17 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, not more than three opportunities should have been granted for filing a reply to the eviction petition. Repeated adjournments in routine, mechanical manner have been granted in the case at hand. The court cannot be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligent and take timely action. 10. Repeated adjournments by the counsels in mechanical and routine manner affects timely dispensation of justice. As a consequence whereof, trust and confidence of the litigant in the justice delivery system is shaken. In order to create an efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law, Courts are expected to be diligent and take timely action. There is a need to change the work culture and to get out of adjournment culture, which has to a great extent shattered the confidence and trust of litigants in the justice delivery system. 11. Granting of repeated adjournments in routine manner and how it affects the justice delivery system came to be considered before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal and Others, 2021 (12) SCC 612 , wherein, it has been held as under:- “9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. 10. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and who have come for justice and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants. 11. Take an example of the present case. Suit was for eviction. Many a times the suits are filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of the landlord. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement may be defeated. The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery system and instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects the rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. 12. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. 12. Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained. 12. Once the reply had been filed on 14.06.2024, the matter was listed for filing of rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner and for framing of issues on 25.07.2024. Rejoinder was not filed by the petitioner/landlord on 25.07.2024, however, issues in the case at hand were finally framed on 05.12.2024. After 25.07.2024, the matter was listed before the Rent Controller on 21.09.2024 and 04.11.2024. In framing of issues about four months have been spent by the Rent Controller. Framing of issues is to be done by the court. Diligence and taking timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system requires that mundane acts like framing of issues should have been done promptly and forthwith. 13. After framing of issues, the matter was fixed for recording of evidence on behalf of the petitioner on 10.01.2025. Since on 10.01.2025, the Presiding Officer was unavailable, therefore, the matter was now posted for recording of the evidence of the petitioner on 11.04.2025. 14. Keeping in view the dilatory tactics being adopted by the respondent in the case at hand thereby deferring adjudication of the Rent Petition filed by the present petitioner and taking into account the numerous adjournments granted by the court in a mechanical, routine manner and the lack of diligence shown by the Rent Controller concerned in taking timely action in performing a mundane act like framing of issues there is a need to change the work culture in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in Rule of law, henceforth, in the case at hand, the Rent Controller shall not grant unnecessarily adjournments and the case shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible subject to the convenience of the Court concerned. 15. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.