Smt. Raj Rani vs Sh. Ved Parkash And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1444 Del

ORDER

Vikramjit Sen, J.

1. By this Order I shall dispose off the three applications filed by the Petitioner (a) C.M. 1024/2001 for the restoration of the Civil Revision dismissed for non-prosecution; (b) C.M. 1025/2001 for staying dispossession of the Applicant/Petitioner and (c) C.M. 1026/2001 for condoning the delay in filing the application for restoration of the Civil Revision.

2. The facts, in precis, are that over one decade ago a petition had been filed for the eviction of the Tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. By the impugned Order dated 15.10.1996, this petition was allowed and an Eviction Order was passed against the Tenant who is the Petitioner herein. Six months time was granted to the Tenant for vacating the premises. A few days before the expiry of this period of six months the present Revision petition was filed. At the initial hearing, a stay of dispossession was ordered which appears to have continued till 2.11.2000 when the Revision petition was taken up for its Final Disposal in the category of Regular Matters. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has belaboured the fact that no Orders dated 2.11.2000 are available on the file. This is no doubt true. However, on that date the matter was heard in detail by my Learned Brother Madan B. Lokur, J. as is evident from the Orders passed on the following day, that is, 3.11.2000. It is palpably evident that no Orders date 2.11.2000 are available on the Court file for the reason that my Learned Brother Madan B. Lokur, J. had dictated the Orders in Court. He, therefore, felt no necessity to make a formal order to this effect. The matter, however, was renotified by him on the following day. Although it is a surmise, quite obviously the Learned Judge had decided for the dismissal of the Revision. If this were not so there would have been no reluctance to pronounce the Order even in the absence of the party in whose favor it was to be passed. But this conjecture has not in any manner influenced my present decision. The Orders dated 3.11.2000 are reproduced below:

" C.R. 394/1997

I had heard arguments in this case on 2nd November, 2000 and had in fact dictated my orders in Court. None was present for the Petitioner at the time of hearing.

Before signing the order, I felt that it would be better if this matter is heard when learned counsel for the Petitioner is present.

List the matter for directions on 7th November, 2000."

3. As mentioned above, reading between the lines it would be fair to infer that the decision of the Learned Judge was against the Petitioner. However, in the interest of justice, he had considered it appropriate to give yet another opportunity to the Petitioner to be present and address arguments. The matter came up for hearing on 7.11.200 when there was again no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. The Revision petition was taken up on 9.11.2000 and was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the matter was not duly shown in the Cause List circulated on 2.11.2000, 3.11.2000, 7.11.2000 or finally on 9.11.2000. Despite being specifically listed, no appearance/representation was made on behalf of the Petitioner on all these four dates. While dismissing the petition for non-prosecution my Learned Brother Madan B. Lokur, J. had directed that one month's clear notice should be given to the Petitioner before the decree of eviction is executed. A Notice dated 30.3.2001 was duly issued by the counsel for the Respondent/Landlord and was served on the Tenant/Petitioner herein on 3.4.2001. Eventually these applications were filed on 11.4.2001. At the first hearing of the case on 25.4.2001. At the first hearing of the case on 25.4.2001 notice of the applications was ordered and I had stayed the execution proceedings till the next date of hearing, that is, 7.5.2001. On that date the following Order was passed; which are reproduced in order to illustrate the conduct of the Petitioner even after the dismissal of the Revision.

" CMs 1024-26/2001 & CR 394/1997

On 3rd November, 2000 Mr. Madan B. Lokur, J. had recorded that he had heard arguments and had even dictated the order but had not signed it, in the interest of justice. The petition was dismissed. Subsequently on receiving a notice of initiation of execution proceedings of the decree, as mentioned in the order dated 9th November, 2000, the present application has been filed. On 25th April, 2001 I had granted a stay of execution proceedings till the next date of hearing, that is today. No steps for dusty service were taken by the Petitioner, despite the background of the prior negligence in prosecuting this Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the Respondents have appeared today, having seen the case in the Cause List. Mr. Mor, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner mentions that there was no order to the effect that the Respondents would be served 'dusty.' This is contrary to the tenor of the last order.

In these circumstances the stay of the execution proceedings is recalled. Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1/landlord undertakes that without the prior leave of the Court, the Petitioner will not be physically dispossessed from the premises.

Reply, if any, be filed within ten weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

Renotify on 10th August, 2001."

4. The ground for condensation of delay is that the Petitioner had learnt of the dismissal of the revision petition on 3.4.2001 and had filed the applications after ascertaining the facts. The application for condoning the delay appears not to have accompanied the other two applications. I shall not, however, dwell on this point further. The short question which has to be considered is whether sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside the Orders whereby the Revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

5. Coincidently a similar question was heard by me in great detail in Gobind Prashad Jagdish Prashad v. Hari Shankar & Others, 2001 II AD (DELHI) 528, and this decision has been relied upon by Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the Respondent, who was the counsel for the unsuccessful Application/Respondent in that litigation. Mr. Ahluwalia informs me that a challenge to the correctness of the order is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, however, paradoxically relies on that judgment in these proceedings. This stand would cause him some discomfort and awkwardness in the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but that is of no concern of this Court. I mentioned it only because of the irony of the circumstances.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant/Tenant is that my observations in Gobind Prashad's case (supra) would not apply in the case in hand for the reason that the latter lis has been pending for only a little over a decade whereas in the previous case about three decades had elapsed. In my view there is hardly any appreciable distinction in both. The fact that a party has to wait for over a decade in order to get a verdict in respect of a petition in which eviction of the Tenant is sought on the grounds of personal bona fide need is indicative of the malady afflicting our legal system. It could be a consequence of the laxity on the part of the counsel or because of the alacrity on the part of the Courts in liberally restoring cases, sometimes even on flimsy grounds. The following extract from Gobind Parshad's case (supra_ is contextual:

"The conduct of the Respondent and the Advocate is cavalier, lackadaisical and negligent; not once has any person bothered to appear in the case. Respondent No. 4 was served through publication. The next date had being shown as 'actual;' in the newspaper but still there was no appearance on his behalf. The applications have not been supported by the affidavits of the Advocate whose vakalatnama was on the file. This was essential since it is only this person who could have deposed that the Appeal could not be traced/noticed because of the failure to mention his name in the Regular Cause List. The affidavit of Respondent No. 1 is of no advantage since he was either unaware of these facts, or if aware, had knowledge of the listing and hence can scarcely fasten the blame on his Advocate alone. It must also be kept in kind that the Appeal was actually taken up for hearing on 24..8.2000, but adjourned, quite obviously in the interest of justice, because of the absence of the Respondents. Courts cannot be impervious to the plight of the litigant who was already spent time, effort and money over a period spanning three decades. It would be a travesty of the legal system if a rehearing is allowed to a party who has manifested an intention default in appearance and exhibited negligence, if not malafides. The Court ought not to set aside a judgment unless strong grounds, clearly establishing sufficient cause for the non-appearance of a diligent party are disclosed. No such case has been made out and on these submissions alone I would dismiss all the applications, with costs."

7. Mr. B.S. Mor, learned counsel for the Petitioner, contends that his case is not in the same genre as the above case. I disagree. I cannot ignore the fact that an early hearing application had earlier been moved. That application had been listed in the Court in March/April 2000. The lis was therefore quite alive. The Revision petition was not listed out of turn. It was the duty of the Petitioner and/or his Advocate to keep a vigil on the matter and at least inspect the Cause Lit from time to time. As mentioned above the case was shown in the Regular List for several days before it was dismissed for non-prosecution, after an intervening hearing of arguments by the Landlord's Learned Advocate. It is evident that it was heard for some tie on 2.11.2000 but my Learned Brother Madan B. Lokur, J. had deferred the signing of the Orders in order to grant an opportunity to the Petitioner to present himself and his case. The conduct of the case in November 2000 shows that the Petitioner either had a cavalier and negligent attitude or it was purposeful for causing delay. In both events his conduct does not qualify or merit the restoration of the Revision petition. The Tenant has already been heard in detail by the Rent Controller. The facts of the case are almost on all fours with that of Gobind Parshad's case (supra). I find no merit in the applications.

8. Dismissed.