Shyam Sunder and Another vs Bharat Kumar and Another

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—The application (IA No. 6453/2011) for preponing is considered and is allowed.

Having regard to the circumstances, the matter has been considered today itself.

After having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and after having perused the material placed on record particularly the long drawn and umpteen number order-sheets by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in the petition for eviction pending against the Petitioner since the year 2005 (Case No. 400/2005), this Court is satisfied that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 25.02.2010 and in refusing to take on record the affidavits of the witnesses sought to be supplemented by the Petitioner.

The comprehension of the order-sheets makes it clear that the Petitioner has made every effort to delay the proceedings for one reason or another, on one pretext or another, with one objection or another, and by moving one application or another. Several adjournments had been granted with imposing of costs.

It is but clear from a comprehension of all the ordersheets that the only intention on part of the Petitioner has been to prolong the proceedings one way or the other. The mistake, if any, on the part of the learned Tribunal had been of not imposing heavy costs on the Petitioner while rejecting the prayer for supplementing the record.

The eviction petition is said to be pending and posted for final arguments tomorrow. It shall be required of the Tribunal concerned to proceed expeditiously in the matter curbing against any other attempt on the part of the Petitioner to prolong the proceedings by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.

During the course of dictation of this order, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a prayer that the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw from this writ petition with liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies including raising of grounds against the order impugned in appeal, if occasion so arise.

In view of what has been observed above, with this Court being satisfied that there had been regular attempts on the part of the Petitioner to prolong the proceedings and thereby the petition for eviction, filed way back in the year 2005 is pending yet, this Court finds no reason that any such indulgence be granted to the Petitioner. Further, for this writ petition having been considered on merits and this Court being satisfied that the application as moved by the Petitioner in an attempt to supplement the record has rightly been rejected, there appears no justification to grant any such indulgence to the Petitioner. The prayer for withdrawal is declined.

This writ petition stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 3,300/- (three thousand three hundred). Payment of this amount of costs shall be the condition precedent for the Petitioner''s further participation in the proceedings before the Tribunal.

A copy of this order be forwarded to the Tribunal concerned immediately.